Read Full Transcript EXPAND
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMEL MUSALLET, SON KILLED: He was hit, he was beaten. He lost conscience, but nobody could get to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: An American citizen killed by Israeli settlers. We have a special report on the escalating violence in the occupied West Bank.
Then clashes in Southern Syria as Israel hits target, saying it’s protecting the Druze community. What does it all mean for Syria and its
stability? I asked Dareen Khalifa from the International Crisis Group.
Plus, as the International Criminal Court warns that war crimes may be committed in Darfur. Where is the accountability? I speak to that court’s
first, chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo and chair of the African Studies program at McGill University, Khalid Mustafa Medani.
Also, ahead —
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: When there’s an issue when I criticize this bill is simple matters of decency about us as a society.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: — former treasury secretary Larry Summers gives Walter Isaacson his take on President Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
We begin tonight in the occupied West Bank where Israel has ramped up its operations recently, displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians and
raising entire communities. As it says, it is targeting militants there.
But settler violence is also on the rise. Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military or settlers there since Hamas attacked
Israel on October 7, 2023. One of those is a 20-year-old Palestinian American Saif Musallet. Born and raised in Florida. Witnesses report that
he was beaten to death by Israeli settlers and now his family is demanding justice.
Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Tel Aviv with more on this story. And, Jeremy, I know you got to spend some time with his father. What more did
you learn about him?
JEREMY DIAMOND, JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, listen. Saif Musallet was an American. He was born in Port Charlotte, Florida, raised there. He
owned an ice cream shop with his father in Tampa. He had arrived in the West Bank to visit his mother and the rest of his family about a month
earlier. And on Friday, he was beaten to death by Israeli settlers, according to his family.
In the days before his death, he told his father that he was starting to think about marriage, something that he will never be able to fulfill.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
DIAMOND (voice-over): In the back of an ambulance safe, Saif Musallet’s aunt says one final goodbye. She’s far from alone. Hundreds in this West
Bank town have come to honor the American’s son who is deeply rooted in his Palestinian community.
Saif was killed on Friday, just two weeks before his 21st birthday, beaten to death by Israeli settlers, according to his family. Those settlers also
shot and killed another Palestinian man in the same attack, according to eyewitnesses. It is a senseless yet all too common outcome in the West
Bank.
DIAMOND: Today, it is an American citizen being put to rest here, but over the course of the last 20 months of this war, nearly a thousand
Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem according to the United Nations. But today, Saif Musallet’s family is demanding an
American investigation into his death.
KAMEL MUSALLET, SON KILLED: We want justice.
DIAMOND (voice-over): His father Kamel was home in Florida where he runs an ice cream shop with his son when he got the call that Saif had been
attacked by settlers.
MUSALLET: You never think that it’s your son or anything that that, who is this happening to. And then I got word that it was my son. He was hit, he
was beaten, he lost conscience, but nobody could get to him. Ambulance couldn’t come in. Why? Because the IDF restricted that. The IDF blocked
that.
DIAMOND: So, you hold the Israeli military —
MUSALLET: I hold the Israeli military just as responsible as the settlers and the American government for not doing anything about this.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The State Department said it is aware of Saif’s death, but declined to comment further on calls for an investigation.
Israeli authorities say they are investigating but have not made any arrests.
For two months now, Palestinians here say Israeli settlers have been encroaching on their land. And terrorizing Palestinians who try and access
it.
This was the scene on Friday as Saif and other Palestinians tried to reach their farmland. Hafez Abdel Jabbar said he saw settlers chase after a man
he would later learn with Saif.
HAFEZ ABDEL JABBAR, SON KILLED IN 2024: They ran up the hill, they caught a Muslim. They started beating them with sticks.
DIAMOND (voice-over): By the time he reached Saif’s body, he was already dead. As we head to the location where Saif’s body was retrieved, a white
vehicle suddenly appears behind us.
DIAMOND: We have a group of settlers who are now following us in their vehicle. They put their masks on as well, which is a concerning indication.
DIAMOND (voice-over): At an intersection, the settlers get out and try to pelt our vehicle. We manage to approach a nearby Israeli border police
vehicle, and the settlers turn around. But minutes after the border police head out to search for the settlers, we are ambushed.
DIAMOND: Everyone OK.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Shoot, shoot, shoot.
DIAMOND: Go, go, go. Drive, drive, drive. Keep driving.
DIAMOND (voice-over): The masked men smashed the rear windshield of our car. But we managed to speed off unharmed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no. They went —
DIAMOND: They turned. They turned. They turned.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They turned. They turned.
DIAMOND (voice-over): It is just a small window into the reality here.
JABBAR: If it would’ve took us five more seconds, we all would’ve been beating with these things.
DIAMOND: Do you think they would’ve beaten us?
JABBAR: Yes, sir.
DIAMOND: But your son was also killed.
JABBAR: In January, 2024, by a settler. Simply just being there barbecuing.
DIAMOND: What does that feel like to have to constantly try and tell the world what’s happening?
JABBAR: You scream into the whole world, and the whole world is watching, simply silent, seeing all these mothers put their sons down. They worked so
hard to raise them up for 20 years and you pick them up and you put them in the ground under the sky and the silence go on and on and on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
DIAMOND (on camera): And, Bianna, I should note that the Israeli police have said that they have opened an investigation into the attack on our
team. They say that they take such matters extremely seriously, but we should note that many of these settlers in the West Bank have acted with a
pattern of impunity for years now and that is part of the concern that we have heard from so many Palestinians in the West Bank.
In fact, just yesterday we saw dozens of vehicles that were torched by Israeli settlers in the West Bank town of Borkin, near Ramallah. As these
attacks continue, the faith of Palestinians there that investigations into settler violence by the Israelis will actually lead to anything is
extremely low. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: In the meantime, Jeremy, we hear from President Trump that he still holds out hope that a ceasefire or some sort of resolution to the war
in Gaza could come soon. I know we had heard the same from Steve Witkoff suggesting it would come as soon as last week when Prime Minister Netanyahu
was in the United States. Where do negotiations stand at this point?
DIAMOND: Look, Bianna, these two sides have been very close to a deal over the course of the last two weeks. But for now, there is still disagreements
over one major sticking point that has been holding up the prospects of an agreement, and that is over the withdrawal of Israeli troops from portions
of the Gaza Strip.
The major issue that has surfaced has been over this Morag Corridor, which separates the southern city of Rafah from the rest of the Gaza Strip. It
seems that the Israelis are reticent to withdraw from that corridor over the course of this 60-day ceasefire and want to maintain at least a partial
foothold there.
We heard today from the Qatari ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman who stressed that he doesn’t believe that talks have collapsed altogether, that
the negotiations are continuing, but he could not say exactly when a deal will happen. He said that, you know, we cannot say whether an agreement
will be reached tomorrow or whether negotiations will collapse tomorrow. That is kind of the margin of error that we are dealing with here.
And of course, the consequences of ceasefire negotiations failing are enormous. There are still 20 living Israeli hostages being held in Gaza,
whose lives are in danger every single day. And of course, we have seen for Palestinians who are living there that the humanitarian conditions have not
improved. They are continuing to worsen, especially in terms of hunger, in terms of access to medical care, and of course the bombs that are
continuing to fall. Bianna.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And that short-term, longer-term the impact of this war on any sort of normalization with more countries in the region, especially
Saudi Arabia, all depend on this war coming to an end as well. Jeremy Diamond, thank you so much for your reporting.
Meanwhile, Israel is also operating in southern Syria, launching strikes against Syrian forces as it vows to protect the Druze community there.
These pictures show Syrian forces heading towards the southern city of Suwayda where sectarian violence is flaring up once again with dozens of
people killed after clashes according to local media.
Now, this puts the new Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa and his government back in the spotlight just two weeks after the United States formally
lifted its sanctions on the country. Dareen Khalifa is a senior adviser for dialogue promotion at the International Crisis Group, and she joins us now
from Cairo in Egypt.
Dareen, thank you so much for taking the time. So, we should just note that this violence erupted, as we noted, in Suwayda over the past few days. It’s
killed dozens of people. There is a fragile ceasefire in place that’s just been announced. The Syrian interior ministry told the Associated Press that
clashes fundamentally are not sectarian in nature.
Now, if this looks and sounds familiar in Syria. We saw similar sectarian crack clashes back in March, and that was when hundreds of Alawite Syrians
were killed. This case involves Druze and Bedouins in Syria. Talk to us about the dynamics at play right now.
DAREEN KHALIFA, SENIOR ADVISER FOR DIALOGUE PROMOTION, INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP: Thank you so much for having me, Bianna. I mean, there is
absolutely a sectarian angle to this. I mean, the sectarian dynamic in Syria is very prevalent. It’s something the Assad regime, both Bashar and
Haas have entrenched in the society over 50 years of their role.
However, I think it is important to not look at all these breakdown in security happening across Syria only from a sectarian lens because in
essence, it is a struggle between a central nascent government that is trying to assert its control and trying to assert its dominance and
monopoly over use of force, and then all these other non-state armed groups across the country who are trying to preserve a level of autonomy that
allows them to maintain their military capabilities and their civil administration as well.
That applies to the Druze community, it applies to the Kurdish community, it really applies across the country. It is a struggle that we have seen
occur throughout the last seven months. And I think it will continue to occur unless and until there are political agreements between the
government and these communities that kind of addresses their concerns.
And again, some of these concerns are sectarian by nature. The Druze community, the local population is concerned and it doesn’t help that like
factions associated to the central government are chanting these sectarian slogans, are misbehaving, are committing crimes against civilians. It does
really give the impression within these communities that the government either is unable or unwilling to control factions that are operating under
its umbrella.
GOLODRYGA: So, that raises the question of how much control al-Sharaa’s government has at this point to the country.
KHALIFA: It is more control than I thought he would. It’s less control than what the Syrians expect him to achieve. Now, we have to put things in
perspective. It’s only been seven months since the fall of Assad. Since then, the Syrian government has been operating on a million front. They’ve
been focusing primarily on their foreign relations in order to remove a web of U.S. and European sanctions that have been suffocating the country
economically. They understand that this is a priority.
The second priority has been trying to merge all the armed groups that have been operating in different parts of Syria under their command control.
Now, they’ve done a lot of progress in terms of merging in Sunni factions, specifically those who have been either backed by Turkey or operating very
closely to Tarif e Shram group, the group that Ahmed al-Sharaa had presided over prior to becoming the Syrian president.
Now, that excludes a chunk of the country that is under the Kurdish-led forces, the Syrian democratic forces that have been backed by the U.S. in
the international coalition. And Druze militias operating in the south, as well obviously as former regime remnants who still have some form of
presence in the western flanks of the country.
GOLODRYGA: The al-Sharaa takeover and overthrowing of Bashar al-Assad’s government, which really surprised the world at the rate and speed with
which it happened, happened at the tail end of the Biden administration. We know at the time the transitional government promised to form a new
government that would include much of the minority groups there and addressing the concerns about the sectoral divide in the country.
The 23 new member government in Syria that was announced just a few weeks ago, though, only includes one Druze member. So, how much concern and how
much valid concern is there that that initial pledge isn’t being lived up to?
KHALIFA: You are absolutely right. There’s been a lot of talk from assurance from the government about inclusivity, about diversity, about
being a government for all of Syrians. However, very little of that has been reflected not only in the composition of the government, but also in
the composition of the military, the security forces. And also in the implementation of Syrian policies and the constitutional declaration that
they’ve announced a few months back, that is quite concerning not just to minority groups, but also to secular and liberal Syrians who would like to
see a diverse country and would like to see a new era in their country.
So, yes there’s one Druze member, and I think that was the problem that they made it out to be a Coda system in which there’s one woman, one Druze,
one Kurd, one Alawite, and people are asking the question, do these people actually have, not only are they representative, but do they have decision
making abilities? Are they able to take actual decisions that are consequential?
And I think these questions are very valid and the government still has a lot to do to project a level of inclusivity and diversity that can give
confidence to millions of Syria.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And looking back, it may have been too ambitious of a goal, and this came at a time when not only did al-Sharaa just come to
power in defeating Assad, but also when there were still sanctions in place from the United States. And one of the top demands was this inclusivity
from the Biden administration. We’re not necessarily hearing the same demands and focus on demands from the Trump administration, who we should
note, as we did just a few weeks ago, lifted those sanctions on al-Sharaa and his government.
Let me bring up Israel’s role here. Because Israel, as we noted, launched airstrikes on Suwayda on Tuesday last week after the Syrian government
entered this Druze city. And the Israeli government has pledged to protect the Druze community there in a joint statement by the prime minister and
the defense minister. Here’s what they said. Israel is committed to preventing harm being inflicted on the Druze in Syria, owing to the deep
covenant of blood with our Druze citizens in Israel and their historical and familial link to the Druze in Syria. We are acting to prevent the
Syrian regime from harming them and to ensure the demilitarization of the region adjacent to our border with Syria.
What is the view in Syria about how far Israel will actually go in its defense of the Druze?
KHALIFA: Damascus is incredibly concerned about Israeli policy and military actions in Syria. They’ve been very concerned since day one of the
transition, and they have valid reasons to. Just in the first few days of Assad falling, Israel went in really quickly and almost obliterated Syria’s
military infrastructure. They capture territory west of the Golan Heights. They started building military infrastructure of their own in these areas.
Initially said that — they said that the military campaign is temporary, but it doesn’t — it seemed like — fast forward seven months, it is still
ongoing. They’ve been targeting assets across the country. They, just in the last couple of months, hit very close to the presidential palace.
They — in their rhetoric, they’ve talked about protecting Druze, but they’ve also talked about protecting Kurds. Now, the Druze are a special
minority group for Israel because they are established both in Israel and Lebanon, but also — sorry, in Syria and Lebanon, but also in Israel. And
they are in quite influential positions, Israel.
So, when they escalate rhetorically in favor — against the government in favor of the Druze community, that is also signaling internally to the
Druze in Israel that they are protecting them in Syria. So, they’re sending messages trying to — well, as I said, they’re signaling internally, but
they’re also signaling to Damascus to try to kind of slow down their military progress in recapturing the area.
If you ask me, I don’t think they’re going to be able to stop the central government from capturing remaining parts of Syria. I think it’s a matter
of time before that happens. But they’re slowing it down. They’re raising the cost of that for them. And again, it’s very worrying for Damascus,
especially that al-Sharaa and the foreign minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, have been quite de-escalatory in their tone in messaging towards Israel.
They have signaled publicly and privately for a long time that they’re not in the business of picking a fight with their neighbors specifically
Israel, they know that their balance of power stilled against them. And on the contrary, they’ve actually flirted with the idea of a potential
normalization agreement with Israel. So, yes, they are moving in a very different direction than what Tel Aviv is at the moment.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And this is something, this normalization idea between Syria and Israel is something that’s really being pushed by the Trump
administration right now as well. I wish I could keep speaking with you longer because you have actually spoken with and interviewed al-Sharaa a
number of years ago. So, I’m so curious to get your perspective on his evolution, which just means we’re going to have to have you back on the
show very soon to continue this conversation. Dareen Khalifa, thank you so much for your time.
KHALIFA: Thank you so much for having me. It’s a pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And later in the program, the ICC believes that war crimes and crimes against humanity are being committed in Sudan’s Darfur region. So,
how will those responsible be held accountable? We’ll have that discussion up next.
GOLODRYGA: The International Criminal Court says it believes war crimes and crimes against humanity are continuing to take place in Sudan’s Western
Darfur region, where a civil war has been raging for more than two years now.
The court’s deputy prosecutor has told the United Nations that the humanitarian crisis there has reached a, quote, “intolerable state” and
warned that things can still get worse. What will it take for this to end and for any justice to be served? Luis Moreno Ocampo was the ICC’s first
chief prosecutor who oversaw previous investigations into alleged war crimes in Darfur. And Khalid Mustafa Medani is chair of the African Studies
program at McGill University. Welcome both of you.
Luis, let me start with you because the ICC now says that it has, quote, “reasonable grounds” to believe that war crimes have been committed and
crimes against humanity are underway now in Darfur. They haven’t said who exactly is committing these crimes? So, the United States, several human
rights groups have named the RSF as responsible for crimes against humanity, mass killing, war crimes, et cetera. Why do you think the ICC has
yet to put a name on these charges and allegations?
LUIS MORENO OCAMPO, FORMER CHIEF PROSECUTOR, ICC: Well, the sad story is that the conflict in Darfur and the genocide in Darfur started 20 — more
than 20 years ago. And that’s why we’re — and then, in — the good part of the story was in those days was the first genocide in the 21st century. So,
all the countries in the world, including Russia and U.S., agreed there should be an investigation. And 20 later, crimes are still ongoing. So,
that’s why Darfur is an opportunity to find the solutions.
GOLODRYGA: And you look at the evidentiary evidence that’s already being laid out. And as you’ve said, this has been sadly ongoing for a number of
years. Do you think that there’s enough of a case now to make indictments against RSF leaders?
OCAMPO: Well, the prosecutor — deputy prosecutor, the chief prosecutor previously, both say they have ongoing investigation. The problem is, look,
in my time, we indicted one (INAUDIBLE) militia leader, who’s today in trial, a minister and the president of Sudan. And he will remove it. But
the crimes are ongoing and continue.
So, the problem is, can Darfur be an opportunity for the world to find new solutions? The strategy we have is failing. When you talk about Syria, it’s
the same, we are failing. Making peace is like cooking. We need to combine the elements and we are not doing that. You need to combine justice,
military efforts, political efforts, and we are not doing that. And that for me is an opportunity to find the solutions, discuss the solution for
the world, not just for Darfur.
GOLODRYGA: And we’re seeing a price of those failures. Let me start by asking you, Khalid. When you look at what’s happening on the ground there,
you yourself have described this as worse than it was in the 2000s. Hard to imagine anything worse. But given some of the testimonies that we’ve heard
from those who have endured mass rapes and obviously have been witness to mass killing, tell us what you’re hearing that is happening there now.
KHALID MUSTAFA MEDANI, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ISLAMIC STUDIES, MCGILL UNIVERSITY AND CHAIR OF THE AFRICAN STUDIES PROGRAM, MCGILL
UNIVERSITY: Well, I — well, what I’m hearing is exactly what, unfortunately, the deputy prosecutor of the ICC has documented in length
and that has — it’s been happening for 27 months. It is a devastating — as she put it there, it’s difficult to find the words to express the depth
of suffering, and I really want to highlight that.
We’re talking about over, you know, just a little bit over two years, 13 people internally displaced, millions who are refugees, that attack against
civilian infrastructure completely decimated throughout the country, including hospitals. 80 percent of the hospitals destroyed. And of course,
the targeting ethnic killings of ethnic groups in Darfur, particularly the Masalit and others Africanized ethnic groups, so to speak. So, there’s a
litany of human rights violations in addition to violations, of course, of international humanitarian law. And this is why the prosecutor has kind of
itemized it.
So, I’m hearing very much the same thing. But of course, in far greater detail. I’m also following social media where you see, unfortunately, both
sides, the militias, the Rapid Support Forces, and the Sudan Armed Forces and their allied militias posting social media showing actually a wide
range of human rights violations, including extra judicial killings, torture, all of the kind of crimes that absolutely fall under crimes
against humanity and crimes of war. And I think that that’s important to highlight.
In addition to that, unfortunately, the kind of expansion of the use of sexual violence and gender-based violence as a weapon of war is just
another kind of indication that this report is extremely important. The question becomes, how will it be implemented? Will the Security Council,
including those who have vetoed like countries who have vetoed other resolutions on Sudan? I’m here speaking directly about Russia as an
example. Will there be a consensus around doing something?
We do know that in January, in the previous administration, prior to Trump’s administration taking over, the — you know, the RSF was sanctioned
by Blinken and the former president, Biden, for crimes against humanity. And so, that is already in the books.
And also, there’s been sanction, I want to be very clear, against the leader of the Sudan Armed Forces because both parties to this war, both
protagonists have been accused of crimes against humanity. And that is something that we don’t see necessarily in other armed conflicts. And so,
both sides here must be held accountable.
GOLODRYGA: And what’s the best way of holding them accountable? Because you’re right to note that the RSF is really being painted as the main
aggressor here. The Sudanese army has also been accused of war crimes. So, how to go about bringing justice from both sides?
MEDANI: Well, the first thing to do —
GOLODRYGA: Oh, sorry. Apologies. Let me have Luis jump in and then we can have, Khalid, you can wait as well.
MEDANI: Sure.
OCAMPO: Well, doing justice for both sides is exactly the international (INAUDIBLE) mandate. Justice should be impartial. The shame here is 20
years ago, the war was committed to control genocide. In 2025, genocide is a meter strategy and it’s worse.
It’s a meter strategy accepted by international leaders. That’s the problem of today. It’s not just Darfur. Darfur is one of the brutal examples. But
it happened everywhere.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And, Khalid, what is your — one of the solutions you think, obviously, to address the fact that justice does need to be served
on all sides?
OCAMPO: No, justice will be one component.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, let me have Khalid weigh in here now.
OCAMPO: I’m sorry.
MEDANI: Sure. Yes. There are two things. One of them is very much, you know, as I said before, the implementation of the sanctions already in
place, including arms embargo that was implemented by the United Nations in 2004. Human rights organizations have been very clear that that needs to be
not only implemented and followed, but also expanded throughout the country because this war is very different from the earlier one in Darfur in the
sense that it really has reached the entire country. There is no province, no state in Sudan that is not suffering as a result of this war. That’s
number one. That implementation.
The second issue is to also expand targeted sanctions. It took a very long time to actually target the leader of the Rapid Support Forces. But that
was something that was really important. That includes — it includes not only sanctioning him from traveling, but also very crucially, actually
freezing assets that have supported the recruitment of militias, such as the Rapid Support Forces. That’s number one.
The other thing is I think there is a wide consensus now that it’s extremely important to understand that this is a war where no side has won
on the battlefield. And this is a result of the fact that neither party has really a wide scale legitimacy among the population.
What does that mean? That means in the kind of the language that we use in the academy, that we are now at a point of a mutually hurting stalemate.
That means that there is no military solution. And so, in addition, to number one, imposing or rather implementing the sanctions, expanding their
embargo and also targeting — you know, imposing these targeted sanctions, it’s very, very important to re-energize the kind of political negotiations
that the previous administration really embarked upon to bring other actors involved in the conflict to try to adjudicate some kind of, number one, a
ceasefire, guaranteed humanitarian access, and of course, finally, and most importantly, the only way to hold people accountable who are responsible
for these crimes is to ensure the transition to a civilian democracy, which is the — what the most Sudanese have fought for so many decades. And we
see that early this month.
If you don’t mind me saying, we have the deputy secretary of state who met with the Quad, the countries that are most involved in this conflict, not
directly responsible, but certainly importantly involved. Of course, the United States, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. That’s a
starting point.
It’s very important for the United States administration, if you don’t mind me saying, not to subcontract this conflict to the Gulf countries, which
have — they have done historically. And what seems to be happening is crucially important that these external actors who are so involved really
are brought together in a way, as the deputy secretary put it to them in the meeting, to define their interests in Sudan and how that can be
reconciled with a sustainable piece in the country.
So, this is the first step, but I would really kind of emphasize that has to be continued and it must be done under American leadership because there
are kind of contested interest in the region among a variety of different regional actors that have not been the cause of this war, obviously, but
certainly, they have sustained it and obstructed accountability.
GOLODRYGA: Luis, do you agree with that assessment from Khalid, that the U.S. should take a more active role here and not have this be something
that Gulf States have actually taken the lead on, that this is something the United States should invest more time in addressing and bringing to an
end countries that have leverage like the United States? And I would also mention Russia, but Russia itself is now conducting its own illegal war in
Ukraine.
OCAMPO: Well, the problem is the U.S. has no idea how to manage the problems. And not just the one president, previous presidents. President
Obama decided to ignore that full genocide to make a deal with President Bashir about the independence Sudan and support for the world terror.
So, President Obama didn’t make this decision. So, it’s not just President Trump, the U.S. — Donald Trump, scholars are proposing U.S. lead and U.S.
will be in charge of the world. And it’s failing brutally. And take — let me present what he say very clearly. Egypt is involved, Qatar is involved
in one side, Emirates is involved in different sides. So, these are three allies of U.S. with conflicting interest.
So, U.S. has no ability to combine them. Has no ability to do it in other regions of the — other parts of the regions or all the parts of the world.
So, that’s the problem. U.S. has to — has no idea how to lead. That is — that’s why what is failing today when the — we need to have find new
solutions. We need to cook differently because it’s not working.
GOLODRYGA: Right. And in your tenure, as you noted, at the ICC, you accused Bashar of genocide. He was indicted by the ICC in 2009 on multiple
counts linking to atrocities committed during this Darfur conflict. He evaded arrests for over a decade, was even able to travel internationally.
And there’s concern that we could see the same fallout here.
So, you laid out sort of the obstacles that you’ve endured. Sadly, Luis, it sounds like those same obstacles are still in place today.
OCAMPO: Well, that’s my point. Making peace is like cooking. You have to combine the elements. Justice was a new element on Darfur. And we fulfill
our job. We indicted people. But then, the political leader had to include this into the cooking. And the way to include was, OK, we had this armed
(ph) warrant, we can support Bashir to ignore that warrant as soon he’s following other in U.S. interests who were, in those days, south of Sudan
independence and the support for the war on terror.
And that’s why the cooking was wrong. And it’s still happening. I know the scholars in the U.S., they are not thinking, they’re not proposing to
political leaders how to manage these problems.
GOLODRYGA: How does the fact that the U.S. has sanctioned the ICC chief prosecutor, the current prosecutor, Karim Khan, over his investigation and
prosecution and arrest warrants for both the prime minister and the former defense minister in Israel, how does that impact, if at all, any leverage
and power that the ICC has right now in Darfur, or are these completely separate issues? What is your view, Luis? Final question.
OCAMPO: No, the — it’s interesting question, because Trump, as Obama, had a pragmatic position. If you read the U.N. Security Council debate, the
U.S. ambassador did not oppose Karim Khan in Darfur. So, what they do is with Obama, call it pragmatic approach. The U.S. support the cases like the
U.S., like it. And I do not support those — they don’t like it.
So, the U.S. support the case against Hamas, the U.S. support the case against Putin, the U.S. oppose and sanctioned the ICC prosecutor because
the Netanyahu case. So, that a la carte menu is not working. We need the law to say, OK, this acceptable, it is acceptable. Genocide is not
acceptable. Genocide is not a military strategy. Genocide is a brutal crime.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
OCAMPO: (INAUDIBLE) to stop it.
GOLODRYGA: As you said, a la carte menu does not seem logical or seem to work in this case, and sadly, it is the citizens of all these countries —
OCAMPO: Neither in Syria.
GOLODRYGA: — that are —
OCAMPO: Neither in Syria. You just mentioned Syria.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
OCAMPO: You showed a picture. The guarantors of peace in Syria are Giuliani, who’s a former Al-Qaeda leader and U.S. supported him to remove
Assad. And Erdogan who Israel consider its enemy. So, imagine how difficult for U.S. to combine all these people who has completely different agendas.
Impossible.
GOLODRYGA: Well, we have to figure a way to work this out though, because it’s the least that people and humanity and organizations like the ICC have
an obligation to — for the lives and to protect the lives of innocent civilians in all of these countries.
OCAMPO: Yes, but they —
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
OCAMPO: ICC doing the job. ICC doing the job. ICC saying, this is wrong. This is genocide. This is not possible. The states had to implement the
decision. So, the problem is not the court. The court —
GOLODRYGA: It’s the implementation. Yes.
OCAMPO: The implementation. And the state has to understand, but the problem is the theory in the U.S., the theory, not just the precedence, the
theory in the best university is you have to follow its own interest to lead the goal. And that theory is ended. Not working. We need to learn
that.
GOLODRYGA: Luis Moreno Ocampo and Khalid Mustafa Medani, thank you so much for your time. A very sobering conversation, but an important one. And
we’ll be right back after this short break.
GOLODRYGA: 11.8 million, that’s how many people in the United States are at risk of losing their vital health insurance because of President Trump’s
new domestic policy law. And while he’s insisted, quote, “That it’s not going to cause death,” former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers argues that
it’s a cruel law that pushes aside simple matters of decency. And he joins Walter Isaacson to explain.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Larry Summers, welcome back to the show.
LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: Good to be with you again.
ISAACSON: You know, you wrote last week after President Trump signed what he called the big beautiful bill on July 4th, he said, I don’t remember any
past July 4th being so ashamed of any action my country had taken, that was in a New York Times op-ed. What do you mean by that?
SUMMERS: I mean that this was a shocking thing in its brutality. We’ve had budgets all the time. We’ve had changes in policy. The United States has
never cut back its social safety net nearly as much in any action, not in Ronald Reagan’s cuts in 1981, not in the budget — in the welfare reform
bill that was passed in the mid-1990s, not in the aftermath of the financial crisis, never have we had as large a cutback in the social safety
net measured relative to the size of the economy as we did here.
And the academic evidence, the studies of what happens when people are kicked off of Medicaid is very clear, they become a bit more likely to die.
And over 10 years, this is likely to kill more than a hundred thousand people. So, there’s a kind of casual brutality about this that’s not even
being widely discussed that is just on a different scale than anything our country has done before in all the various budgets that we’ve had.
And then you ask, we’re doing this to save money, and for what? So, that people who now can tax exempt past $30 million to their kids will be able
to tax exempt past $32 million to their kids, so that corporations will be able to continue to have tax rates that are lower than the ones they asked
for at the time of the original Trump legislation? I just think this is our country getting its values altogether wrong.
ISAACSON: Let me ask you the big philosophical question. There’s certain things we put in the commons, everybody has a right to, whether it’s police
protection, fire protection, defense, roads, things like that. Should healthcare be one of those things we should try to make sure is more in the
commons so that we can protect a society that has disparities of wealth and make sure that everybody can survive in such a place?
SUMMERS: Well, look, I’m a progressive. So, I tend to think the right answer to that question is yes, but that is not what we are debating here.
We are debating whether a parent who is taking care of a child who weighs 70 pounds as an adult whose body is racked by cerebral palsy is going to be
able to get care at home so they can go out and earn a living to support the family.
We are debating whether people who are discharged from the hospital have a place to go when they’re not able to take care of themselves. We are
debating whether aged people who need dialysis to survive. There’s a way of getting them transportation to a hospital. So, we can debate the extent to
which we should provide for the same medical care for everybody. That’s a hard and complicated question. I’m on the progressive side of it.
But the most elementary kinds of decency, I’m sure there’s some people who are against that, but I think the vast majority of the people, if the
question were actually put to them, wouldn’t want to see the kind of brutality that we are engaging in. And it reflects what we are seeing too
much of. We’re seeing it in the tariffs, we’re seeing it in many policies. It’s just a casual what sounds good without really making an effort to
understand what’s happening on the ground.
That’s how the DOGE destroyed the ability of the government to collect taxes and to distribute efficiently social security benefits. That’s how we
are seeing deportations of people who are American citizens and haven’t done anything wrong. It’s the — this isn’t a matter of — we can debate
the longstanding questions between progressives and conservatives. That is not what is an issue when I criticize this bill. What is an issue when I
criticize this bill is simple matters of decency about us as a society.
ISAACSON: You just said that the Medicaid cut would cause a hundred thousand deaths over the next decade, and you said that long ago on a TV
show, that’s 2,000 days of death like we’ve seen in Texas this weekend. You are referring to the Texas Floods.
Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, said your comments turned a human tragedy into a political cudgel, looked deeply offensive, and he called on
you to apologize. What are you saying?
SUMMERS: Secretary Bessent can be offended by whatever he wants to be offended. I think what’s callous, what’s a political cudgel is the policies
that he and his administration are legislating, that will, according to objective experts in both parties, kill people.
And I don’t apologize for making vivid that large a number by pointing out how he dwarfs the terrible, terrible tragedy that took place in Texas. I
think Secretary Bessent, rather than attacking ex-officials who are using their free speech rights to make comments, would be better off asking the
question whether perhaps it was such a great idea to slash the budget of the Weather Bureau, whether it was such a great idea to be in strong
opposition to FEMA in light of what happened. I don’t have any basis for knowing. I really don’t.
But after a tragedy of unprecedented scale that has taken place in the immediate aftermath of efforts to cut the protective mechanisms, that seems
to me to be the question that a thoughtful, conscientious government would engage in.
ISAACSON: You — when you were treasury secretary during the last years of the Clinton administration, I think you all produced balanced budgets.
Compare and contrast the situation then with what Trump is facing now.
SUMMERS: We tried to always be very careful to respect what the independent, nonpartisan people at the Congressional Budget office were
doing. Sometimes we found it inconvenient. Sometimes we wish they would do something different. But we understood that if there was going to be a
process with integrity, there had to be an umpire, and the umpire’s views had to be respected.
As part of the same kind of general attack on knowledge and expertise that has led them to stop supporting vaccination of people and led the country
to an unprecedentedly high level of measles, they’re just attacking all of those procedures and making up their own rules and their own accounting.
And I think it is very unlikely to produce any kind of favorable outcome on the budget.
ISAACSON: You’ve been very critical, of course, on the tariffs, and especially on the up and down tariffs and imposing then taking it back and
pausing, but leave all of that aside in terms of how he’s implementing it. Your push for free trade and globalization really did hurt to some extent
the manufacturing base and some of the jobs base in America. Do you think you overdid that and do you think there may be some room for some tariffs?
SUMMERS: I think that we need to do some things for the manufacturing sector. I strongly supported the CHIPS Act that sought to revitalize our
semiconductor industry. We probably should have done things like that sooner for manufacturing.
I think the kinds of things that were done to support clean energy manufacturing, those should have been done sooner. So, yes, I think there
are things that we should have moved more quickly to do with respect to supporting the industry.
Do I think tariffs are the right answer? Almost universally no. In many, many, many cases, Walter, they’re actually counterproductive. Think about
steel tariffs. 60 times as many people work in manufacturing industries that use steel as work in the steel industry. And so, we’re costing more
jobs by raising input costs than anything we’re saving in the steel industry.
We’re now in an electric economy, whether it’s data centers, whether it’s electric cars, whatever it is. The key to flourishing in that is to be able
to move electricity around. There’s an element that does that, it’s copper. And the administration is talking about massively raising the price of
copper. That’s going to do more damage to manufacturing than any number of jobs that are going to get saved in the copper mining industry.
We created jobs during the Clinton administration faster than they’ve been created before or since. And a strategy that recognized that an open global
economy would do much, much more to help U.S. exporting than any losses that were suffered on the import side, that was the right strategy.
And so, this is a terrible strategy even before what’s going to come, which is that the other countries are going to retaliate. We are — we’re like a
football team that can’t run the play in practice when there’s no defense without it backfiring. These are policies that even before the rest of the
world respond are going to make us poorer in terms of less inputs.
And the other part of it is when you think about workers, Walter, if you ask people right now, are they worried about whether they’re going to have
a job? That is a much smaller issue for people than the cost of living. And these tariffs at their current levels, the Yale Budget Lab says they’re
going to add $2,800 to the average family. There have been half a dozen careful, thorough statistical studies of the much smaller tariffs that
President Trump imposed during his first. They all found what common sense suggests that those tariffs are passed on in the form of higher prices to
consumers.
And so, yes, it’s not because I don’t care about American workers that I’m for supporting an open global economy, it’s because I do care about
American workers and I want their paychecks to go as far as they can. And I want them to have maximum opportunity to do what America’s best at.
No free trader would ever have suggested that the role of American workers should be to assemble small telephones in the way that the secretary of
commerce of the administration suggested was the central part of the current administration’s economic strategy.
So, yes, we do need to be paying attention to manufacturing, particularly where it relates to national security. But no, tariffs are not the right
way.
ISAACSON: Larry Summers, once again, thank you so much for joining us.
SUMMERS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And that is it for us for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
END