Read Full Transcript EXPAND
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to “Amanpour and Company.” Here’s what’s coming up.
Trump and Putin talk, prepare to talk Ukraine without Ukraine at the table. I ask Kyiv’s former foreign minister about his hopes and fears for the
Alaska Summit.
Then starvation grips Gaza as Israeli bombing continues. Still voices on both sides call for peace. I speak to Palestinian rights activist Hiba
Qasas, and former Israeli Air Force Chief Nimrod Sheffer.
Also, ahead, Texas Democrats flee the state to fight Republicans redistricting plan. Michel Martin talks to State Representative James
Talarico.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I’m Christiane Amanpour in London.
Positive words from Vladimir Putin on the eve of his Alaska summit with Donald Trump, flattering Trump’s diplomatic initiative and hinting at
broader opportunities for peace. Though could that also be a diversionary tactic? Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): To tell you about the stage we are at with the current American administration, which as
everyone knows is making, in my opinion, quite energetic and sincere efforts to stop the hostilities, stop the crisis and reach agreements that
are of interest to all parties involved in this conflict in order to create long-term conditions for peace between our countries and in Europe and in
the world as a whole if by the next stages we reach agreements in the area of control over strategic expensive weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But before Putin and Trump reign in the nuclear arms race, there is the matter of Ukraine to consider. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met
with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today to underscore a united front amongst western leaders who agreed that any peace plan must start with a
ceasefire, and that Ukraine must be at the table for any follow-up negotiations. President Trump says he’s on board with these conditions and
he warned Vladimir Putin of, quote, “very severe consequences” if Russia does not agree to stop the war.
So, what might actually come out of tomorrow’s summit and how do Ukrainians view a meeting about their future happening over their heads? Dmytro Kuleba
was foreign minister for most of the war and is now a member of the National Defense and Security Council. He’s joining us from Kyiv. Welcome
back to the program.
DMYTRO KULEBA, FORMER UKRAINIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: It is my pleasure.
AMANPOUR: So, we started by asking, and I want to know from your perspective, how are you all feeling there about this meeting?
KULEBA: Well, Ukrainians have been through so many hardships. We endured so much. We’ve seen so many talks, announcements, opportunities that we
have become extremely cautious about every next promise of a solution, whether it’s a pause or anything else. So, Ukrainians definitely have hopes
for the meeting, but everyone understands that judging from what is happening on the frontline we are not close to peace and expectations are
very cautious.
AMANPOUR: I’m going to get to the frontline in a moment, but I want you to react to what President Putin said about other, you know, aspects of a
broader peace deal or negotiations with the United States. I mean, he went off onto nuclear weapons, you call them strategic offensive weapons, and we
understand he’s talking about trade and other issues. He’s raising all that. So, more bilateral stuff than actual Ukrainian stuff.
KULEBA: Well, that’s exactly how Russia has been positioning the Ukraine issue in its agenda with the United States over the last years. President
Putin always tries to underscore that Ukraine is a secondary, if not third level issue to discuss and there are much more important issues on the
table. There is nothing new in that. We shouldn’t be getting particularly agitated about that.
AMANPOUR: Do you think there’s anything new at all in Putin’s stance and certainly President Trump’s stance that might give you any hope for
tomorrow?
KULEBA: Well, let me take a risk by saying that I do not expect any big breakthrough solutions, whether the ones that may look good for Ukraine or
the ones that may look bad from — for Ukraine and for Europe and the world from tomorrow’s summit. They may send a signal that they’re ready to
continue talking and some important steps have been made towards ending this war, but the situation is too complex. The level of trust between
stakeholders, including between Russia and America is too low.
So, what we can hope for is that the window of opportunity will remain open after tomorrow’s summit. But of course, all of this will be surrounded by
the fog of diplomacy, statements, interpretations, which every side will utilize for its own — in its own purposes.
AMANPOUR: Well, you’ve been in that sort of diplomatic hot house. At first it appears that President Trump was told by Putin via Witkoff, his envoy,
that there was a suggestion of swapping territories, you know, from Putin, but then it turned out that there was no giving back anything to Ukraine,
it was all about taking the territories that he wanted from Ukraine. Do you know more about what the Putin offer was in order just to have this
meeting? Do you know what the what they’re asking for?
KULEBA: Well, listen, swapping land is not workable. It’s not going to work. You will — I think we will forget about this idea quite pretty soon,
because basically, when someone hears the words land swap, that implies that Ukraine will give part of the land to Russia and Russia will give part
of the land to Ukraine. That’s exactly what is not meant under these wars when it comes to this particular war, because what Putin suggested is this,
I grabbed some of your lands, I am ready to withdraw from tiny bits of your lands, but you will promise that you will never try to reclaim the vast
lands that I will keep under my control, and you will recognize them legally.
So, you know, even in a nightmare, you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that it has — this deal has nothing to do with land swap. It’s
going to die. There is nothing to swap, because all of this territory is Ukrainian. The only viable solution for the land issue, which indeed is the
biggest obstacle in negotiations, is to leave this matter in the gray zone where both sides will claim their title of ownership on this land. If
President Putin does not make that concession, these talks are not going to go anywhere.
By the way, you can hear the air raid siren behind my back.
AMANPOUR: I can. I can. I know that sound obviously from when I was there. But you know, it appears that preparing for this summit, there have been
fewer of the relentless Russian attacks on Kyiv in the last week. Is that right?
KULEBA: Indeed. We continue to have regular air raid sirens, mostly because of the risk of a ballistic attack. But missiles land outside of
Kiv, they target cities — other cities, not Kyiv. And you can clearly see it as a part of Putin’s preparation for summit. While he’s not limiting him
— his forces in attacking Ukraine as a country in different targets across Ukraine, he knows how sensitive President Trump is to attacks on the
capitol, and therefore, he refrains from doing so, at least he has been avoiding that so far.
AMANPOUR: Are you OK? Do you mind — can you keep talking with this going on?
KULEBA: Yes. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Yes. OK.
KULEBA: We Ukrainians know a rule that there is always a pause between air raid siren and the factual attacks. So, we still have time to wrap up.
AMANPOUR: All right. All right. We’ll keep going then. You said, and also the — obviously the president has said and the allies have said nothing
about Ukraine without Ukraine, no deals made behind Ukraine’s back or over Ukraine’s head, and that is one of President Zelenskyy’s stipulations in a
sort of a series that he put forward, including needing proper security guarantees and of course, including whatever happens in Alaska to include a
ceasefire first.
So, do you think that your country has made that very clear, there’s been a frantic week of negotiation and diplomacy with calls and allies and Trump
and, you know, everybody trying to get on the same page. Do you think that’s an issue that settled?
KULEBA: You see Putin always wanted — Putin has a dream, right? And their dream is this. He sits down with the U.S. president and whatever his name
is or her name is, and draws lines on the map of the world, dividing the world, the map, that’s his dream. And he never wants anyone else at that
table, because his goal is to tell the whole world and the Russian people that Russia is equal to the United States. And in that sense, this dream
will come true in one specific meeting in Alaska.
But President Trump cannot act and does not act in isolation. So, while President Putin does everything he can to deprive Ukraine and it’s European
— France and Europe as a whole of their agency in negotiations, President Trump negotiates and consults with Europeans. You — there was a
conversation yesterday. He promised to talk with them following in the immediate aftermath to the summit with Putin.
So, is Ukraine — will Ukraine be at the summit? No. Will Ukraine be excluded from negotiations? No. It’s just how talks will be structured.
It’s bad that Ukraine will not be at the summit. It’s bad that Europe will not be at the summit. But President Trump cannot afford excluding these
stakeholders from talks for a very simple reason, because whatever deal he may make with Putin, you cannot enforce this deal if it come at odds — if
it comes at odds with European and Ukrainian interests. So, he has to negotiate, he has to talk, and he has to take into account what these
agents — what these actors are saying, whatever Putin thinks of them.
AMANPOUR: Another thing your president has said is that there needs to be, finally, some kind of, you know, punitive measures against Putin if, you
know, you don’t get a ceasefire at the summit, and if the things don’t go right.
So, you know, Masha Gessen, a very, very, you know — a credible voice who is a New York Times opinion columnist, has written, the only thing that
could force Putin to negotiate in earnest is the possibility of military defeat. Without that prospect, he’s content to let the war continue
forever. He doesn’t care about losing wealth as much as Trump imagined he does, and he doesn’t care about losing soldiers at all. In 2022, and again
this May, the Kremlin noted that Peter the Great’s war with Sweden, which began in 1700, lasted 21 years. This war, too, could go on for decades.
Do you agree with that? I mean, let’s face it, it’s already been going on for 12 years, if you take the first invasion and annexation of Crimea.
KULEBA: Well, to be correct in answering this question, we have to be clear, we have to define the word war. Can the war of this level of
intensity and scale last forever of many, many years? No, it cannot. But can a war that will comprise of different phases, of different intensity
last for years? Clearly, it can.
So, what is going to — what is — what may happen is that this phase of the war will be followed with something that will look like a ceasefire,
then the ceasefire will be violated after some time, and you will have you — and the war will rage again, then it will calm down.
You cannot fight endlessly at this scale without having pauses. And this why here in Kyiv, for example, everyone understands that even if a
ceasefire is announced it will not be the end of the war, it will be a pause. I did not know anyone who believes that the ceasefire will mean the
end of the war. This what Ukrainians, I would say, psychologically — have psychologically prepared themselves for.
AMANPOUR: So, let me ask you then about the war, because we’ve seen that in the — you know, the last week or so, knowing that this summit is going
to happen, the Russians have done some lightning moves around in the east, around Pokrovsk, which is a vital hub for you all. What would you advise,
let’s say your counterpart, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, after all the times you’ve been as foreign minister in the negotiating room given that
Putin thinks that these territorial gains is going to be leveraged just ahead of this summit?
KULEBA: You see, one Russian feature is their consistency, and to some extent, they are even boring because they always play by the same playbook.
In 2015, with Minsk negotiations in the background, Russia was fiercely storming Ukrainian city, Debaltseve, and making the point in negotiations
that Ukrainian frontline is about to collapse, fast putting pressure on Germany and France and Ukraine to concede more and more to that.
This exactly what is happening now. I am more than certain you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to suggest that Putin will be making this point to
President Trump tomorrow, that the Ukrainian frontline is collapsing, look how his army is breaking through.
So, the truth is that Putin always pretends to be stronger than he actually is. And this must be on the speaking points of the other of the other side,
which is the United States in this particular case. Putin is never as strong as he pretends. He has weaknesses and these weaknesses can and
should be exploited.
AMANPOUR: And lastly, we’ve got 20 seconds. Do you think President Trump has now got a clearer picture, different to what he was saying in February,
you know, blaming Ukraine, casting Ukraine as the villain and not Russia?
KULEBA: I believe he has the picture. But what I don’t know is how to nudge him to make the final move from threatening pressure to putting
pressure on Russia, because without that, there will be no progress made.
AMANPOUR: Former Foreign Minister Kuleba, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
And now, to the other big war, the one raging in the Middle East. More than a hundred humanitarian organizations have signed a joint
letter urging an end to what they call Israel’s, quote, “weaponization of aid” as a starvation crisis continues to grip Gaza.
Since March 2nd when Israel imposed a blockade on all humanitarian aid, more than 20,000 children have been admitted for treatment for acute
malnutrition. According to the IPC, a global consortium of food organizations, dozens of children and others have already died of
starvation, according to authorities in Gaza. And as the Netanyahu government expands its military campaign, Israeli hostage families are
speaking out. Demanding an end to what they call an endless war without purpose or goal.
Amidst the trauma and pain, there are still those who fight for a peaceful future, including my next guest, former Israeli Air Force Chief Nimrod
Sheffer is an outspoken critic of the Gaza War, now running for the Knesset for the Democrats, a center left party. And Palestinian rights activist
Hiba Qasas, is executive director of the Principles for Peace Foundation. They joined us from Tel Aviv and Ramallah earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Hiba Qasas and Nimrod Sheffer, welcome both of you to the program. It’s really interesting to have you both. One of you is on the
occupied West Bank, you, Hiba, in Ramah and you, Nimrod Sheffer, are in Israel itself, yet you have come together and you are amongst a very
interesting new group, are committed to trying to figure out a way forward.
Can I ask you first to explain why and how you got here? Hiba, you were born in Nablus on the West Bank. Your boyfriend was shot and killed by the
IDF in 2000, and you have left in order to study peace building. And, Nimrod, you are the son of two Holocaust survivors, and you’ve served 37
years in the Israeli military becoming the second in command of the Israeli Air Force.
So, Hiba, first, what about this origin story made you do what you’re trying to do now at this time of all times?
HIBA QASAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRINCIPLES FOR PEACE FOUNDATION AND PALESTINIAN PEACEBUILDING LEADER: Well, thank you very much, Christiane,
for having me on the show. I think I can say like many Palestinians and incidentally also many Israelis, we are shaped by this conflict and the
reality of occupation and insecurity. And for me, I grew up in the West Bank. I grew up in Nablus. I’m a child of the first intifada. I know
exactly what it meant to have loss, but also to live under insecurity.
And for many, many years, I dedicated my career to studying conflict, to working around the world on conflict prevention and peace building because
I really wanted to understand what does it take to stop violence, to build peace, and what this peace needs to deliver to take hold. And of course,
this moment that we’re in is a very dangerous moment because there’s a very strong sense of existential threat.
You know, since October 7th in the war in Gaza, after years of occupation and insecurity felt amongst both our peoples, what we are experiencing
today is truly traumatic. And I can say very clearly that 22 months with the devastation that is happening in Gaza, you know, Gaza is lying in
ruins, the majority of the population is displaced, we’re witnessing starvation. And with all of that, hostages remain in captivity.
And we are seeing that we are on a crossroad. We’re either going to go into a continuous case of perpetual war and intergenerational trauma and loss,
or we need to choose something different. So, I’m choosing to be amongst pragmatic Palestinians and Israelis who see the necessity and the
imperative to forge a different kind of path, a path of mutual recognition, of safety and security, of dignity and an end to the occupation. And a path
that will get us out of this situation that we’re in.
AMANPOUR: So, Nimrod, I don’t know whether you heard Hiba say both of our peoples face an existential situation. So, the empathy from one side to the
other side, do you feel that as well? And what about your history both personal and military, has brought you to this moment and what convinces
you that this a moment of possibility?
GEN. NIMROD SHEFFER (RET.), FORMER CHIEF OF PLANNING, ISRAELI AIR FORCE: OK. Thank you for the question. For having me. What brought me here and to
get to know Hiba and work together with her started with a kind of a deep fear that I felt that I might live to my children a worse place that —
than I inherited from my parents, as you said, Christiane, are Holocaust survivors.
And starting with that I try to understand what I’ve learned in my military service and I have a very deep belief that struggles and conflicts can be
solved, must be solved, and can be solved. And together, both things like brought me to the place when I said, OK, I must be active in that. Because
as a military person, you are active in defending your country, but you don’t necessarily active in solving conflicts. But when I met with Hiba, I
said, OK. I think if we work together, we can do something to solve the conflict, not only to live through it.
I don’t believe in containing conflict for a long time. It causes a lot of suffering. And so, together, I think we are in a place and a point that we
believe we can try and add something to solving that hard conflict.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you the brutal hard facts. There seems to be no public support, certainly not in Israel, and no longer really in — amongst
Palestinians for a two-state solution or for the belief that the peace camp is even on — you know, on life support, much less dead. I mean, there’s no
constituency. Is that in Israel, Nimrod?
SHEFFER: Well, I think it’s a very good question. I think that what is new to me, and I believe for many, many people is the necessity to bring in all
the region. We need to be able to craft a regional agreement, strategic agreement that will deal with all the issues that are very much important
to solving that conflict and we need the regional partners we have, and we have a lot. We need our partners from Europe, from the United States, from
other places to be on board with us to solve that conflict.
Because the conflict is not only an issue between Israels and Palestinians. And I think there is a majority in Israel that say, OK, in the construction
of a regional agreement, strategic agreement, we can see how we have a kind of agreement between Israelis and Palestinians among the other partners in
the — in that kind of structure.
And I think that, you know, bilateral agreement between Israel and Palestinians, as you’ve said, is farfetched and we can hardly believe it
can done. But with the support of the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Egyptians, Jordan, United States, our European friend, when you bring all of them on
board and they are willing to come on board to help us solve this issue, I believe it’s possible.
AMANPOUR: OK. And, Hiba, from your perspective, is there a consensus for – – amongst the Palestinians? Because they too, over the years, have, I think, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, seen every peace process. A, you
know, their own leadership has not been able to say yes to good proposals from the Israelis backed by the U.S., and this endless war and these
endless settlements and these endless obstacles to peace.
QASAS: You know, Christiane, you’re absolutely right. I think when we look at the experience of Palestinians, I mean, we talk a lot about Gaza, but
I’m, I’ve been here now also in the West Bank and speaking with people from different sectors, from the business community, from — you know, amongst
the leadership, but also the civil society.
The reality, the lived reality of people is very hard for them to envisage a different kind of future because you’re talking about, you know, settler
violence, you’re talking about settlement expansion, you’re talking about rhetoric around complete annexation of the West Bank and just traveling on
the road outside of Ramallah and on the way to Nablus, you can see all of these, you know, popup kind of settlement where you have a shepherd, an
Israeli settler who brings a few goats and sheep and he just takes a whole hill and an acreage and prevent farmers from going there. So, yes, there’s
been a loss of hope around the prospects of a political solution.
But the reality is with what’s happening in Gaza, the latest polling is showing a record number of support amongst Palestinians, over 70 percent
today’s support a two-state solution. And the reality that there is an overwhelming desire for separation against amongst Palestinians and
Israelis, and this something I hear as well amongst our coalition members in the United Future Coalition, which brings around 450 Israeli and
Palestinian leaders, there is a desire and an imperative for separation between the two people. There’s a high level of trauma.
And for Palestinians, what’s happening in Gaza is another Nakba. So, in the psyche of the people, its people are very traumatized. But now is the time
to see a different kind of future. And I can tell you for a fact that in the different polling that we’ve been following and our partners have been
doing, we’ve been seeing as much as gleam a very bad picture of polarization and hardened public opinion. We’ve seen entry point, which is
something Nimrod talked about already, that when you’re asking about support to a two-state solution, for example, in Israel, it get — you get
support less than 30 percent. But when we’re talking about a regional political and security framework and a non-militarized Palestinian State as
part of that framework, then the support goes up to over 57 percent.
So, that is the opportunity that is bringing us together, not as a traditional peace camp, but as a coalition of enlightened self-interest, a
coalition that brings folks who believe in real politic and are doing it also for the betterment of their own people and recognize that there is a
desire for separation and that a political solution is the only way forward that would actually break this containment trap and this situation where we
keep seeing this perpetual war, this intergenerational trauma going and inherited from one generation to the other.
AMANPOUR: And, Nimrod, a similar question to you because as traumatized as the Palestinians are and this being a second Nakba, 75 years after the
first one, Israel, I’ve been hearing over and over again from people who I interview, is not in a post-traumatic situation after October 7th, it’s in
a traumatic situation after October 7th.
You though wrote a letter with a lot of other military to get the government to stop this war. On the other hand, as you also know, the very
hardline right-wing nationalist want to bury any idea of a Palestinian State. So, for you, do you think it — you know, this future aim has to
start with the end of the war, and how does that happen?
SHEFFER: Oh, yes. I think that the answer to that question is very clear, we need first to stop the war, not because some reasons that you cannot
describe, but because it doesn’t serve the national security of the State of Israel first. This the first cause why we need to stop the war now. It
was a very right war. It was — you know, in October 7th when we declared the war and we started the war, it was a necessity. We had to defend the
State of Israel and its citizens. And for about six, nine or 10 months, it was the only thing we could do. We had to fight Hamas by all means to bring
back security and safety to the State of Israel and citizens.
But since about a year and maybe a little bit more, when the chief of staff of the Israel Air Force declared that Hamas is no longer exists as a
military force, and then the minister of defense, Gallant, said exactly the same, since that point, the war doesn’t serve the security and safety of
the State of Israel, and it bears a lot of prices. You know, the hostages are still there. Israeli soldiers are getting killed. Palestinian citizens
are getting killed. And we cannot start and rebuild our safety and security. And I think this the main reason why the war should be stopped
now.
And when you’re talking about the long-term — this a short-term solution. We must start from a point when we stop the war, bring back everybody home
and start rebuilding. This going to be a very long process in both sides, even in Israel.
And then, when you’re talking to me about the solution, when I’m looking at the long-term solution, I think first about the State of Israel, my
friends, my people, and I say to myself, look, if you want to live here in safety and security, you must separate from another people, the Palestinian
people who live here.
We — I think living together is really, a kind of a way we won’t be able to support and sustain and reality show that. And I believe we must look
and strive for a solution who, first of all, will make the State of Israel a safer and a better place to live. I believe by that, it’s going give the
Palestinian people also the chance to build a better and a much better place for them to live.
But when we’re talking about, again, the short-term, we must stop the war. And I say it again and again to my government, and I protest against the
government time and again on the streets, it’s not a secret, and I think the government of Israel should stop the war and then start thinking about
the long-term solution.
AMANPOUR: Just — a quick question before I go to Hiba. As you know, your prime minister, Netanyahu, keeps saying to all these western states, and I
mean, now, a lot of countries are saying they’ll recognize a Palestinian State, and he says that is just a reward for terrorists, a reward for
Hamas. Do you think Hamas wins or loses if there is an actual two-state solution, Nimrod?
SHEFFER: Well, I think, first of all, Christiane, that the State of Israel will benefit from a solution before anything else, because we are running
this conflict for so many decades. And you know, when our ancestors build the State of Israel, they didn’t mean to build a state that will fight
forever. So, I don’t think — and Hiba will forgive me, I don’t think about the Palestinians at the moment, I think about the Israelis.
And I think that I should do whatever I can for the State of Israel and its citizens. And the first thing that I can do is trying the best I can to
stop the war and build a future as I can without wars. If that’s a necessity, we know how to fight and we can. But when I look about the State
of Israel and I look back at my people, I think that if we are going to a constant state of war, we cannot ever be the state our ancestors meant when
they build Israel.
That’s why I believe we got first to stop the war, not because — and I’m not cynical, Hiba, and you’ll forgive me, not because the Palestinian,
first of all, because of the Israelis. But yes, I think suffering should be ended at both sides. And I don’t think it’s a prize for a terror, it’s
prize for the people who live on both sides, first, to my people then to Hiba’s.
AMANPOUR: Hiba, Nimrod said you’ll forgive him for prioritizing his own people. He’ll presumably forgive you for prioritizing your own people. So,
what does the security, dignity, sovereignty of the Palestinians depend on? And I know there’s been a letter that you helped craft by the current P.A.
president, Mahmoud Abbas, about the change that needs to happen within your own Palestinian political bodies in order to move this prospect forward.
QASAS: Well, I think it’s very clear that our that our position as well on the Palestinian side is a clear one, the only way that our people can live
in dignity in and realize their legitimate right for self-determination and live also in safety and security, because we need to talk about the safety
and security of Palestinians, because today, Palestinians do not live in safety and security, the only way to achieve that is actually to have an
independent Palestinian State that lives in peace and security next to its neighbor, including the State of Israel. So, I think there’s nothing wrong
to say that we are doing it for our own people. This what I meant with enlightened self-interest and being pragmatic.
Now, on the letter that President Abbas addressed to the International Community, which is a collective effort of the Palestinian Authority and
they’ve crafted it, I think, to address some key issues of concerns. I think it’s very, very important, because it’s a signal. It’s a signal that
the Palestinian Authority is actually listening to the International Community and is putting some efforts forward, which give us an entry
point.
He condemned October 7th and called for the release of all hostages. They’ve talked about the importance of having a future governance in Gaza
without Hamas. They’ve talked about the — and they’ve agreed with the international engagement and providing the kind of security guarantees and
as well regional engagement, which I think is also a very important part of a solution, of a non-militarized Palestinian State living and safety and
security with Israel. And I think we’re at a strategic moment of opportunity today.
AMANPOUR: Nimrod Sheffer, thank you very much. And, Hiba Qasas, thank you very much indeed. Very interesting.
QASAS: Thank you. Thank you.
SHEFFER: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Now, to Texas where a new redistricting plan backed by Republicans is causing a political standoff. Critics accuse them of a
partisan power grab as they look to gerrymander more safe seats ahead of the next congressional election. So, say the Democrats, many of whom left
the state in an attempt to stall this proposal. State Representative James Talarico joins Michel Martin to explain why.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Representative Talaricio, thanks so much for talking with us.
STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO (D-TX): Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: So, you’ve got the Texas flag behind you, but you’re not actually in Texas. Do you mind telling us where you are?
TALARICO: We’re in the state of Illinois. We’re trying to be careful because of security concerns, as I’m sure you’ve reported President Trump
has threatened to send the FBI to come find us. Governor Abbott has threatened to remove us from our duly elected positions in the legislature.
And then, Ken Paxton, our attorney general in Texas, sent out a tweet to his thousands of followers asking them to, quote, “hunt us down. And so,
because of all that, you know, we’ve received a lot of threats, including multiple bomb threats.
MARTIN: Yes. I heard that there were bomb threats at the place where you were staying. But so, when did the idea of breaking quorum, of leaving the
state in order to deny the Republicans a quorum first emerge? How did that happen?
TALARICO: Well, it was when we first started seeing reporting that the president was going to ask Texas Republicans to redraw our political maps
in the middle of the decade. Typically, this done at the beginning of a decade after a new census. That’s exactly what happened in Texas in 2021.
And once we heard that they may try to rig these maps in the middle of the game so that the president doesn’t have to face accountability in the
midterms, we knew we may have to take some dramatic actions to protect the Democratic process, not just in Texas, but across the country.
And so, this is — you know, we’re not fighting for just Democrats, we’re fighting for independents and Republicans too. This about whether or not
the people, all of us, can change our government from the bottom up, whether we can hold powerful people, including the most powerful man in the
country accountable.
MARTIN: This isn’t exactly easy. You know, you got to leave whatever job you have that — you know, that Texas legislature’s not, you know, full
time. So, you have other things to do. You have family members. It’s not easy on people’s lives. So, I just was curious about like, what were some
of the conversations that you had in the caucus about, you know, whether this was the right thing to do or not?
TALARICO: Yes, it was certainly not a decision we made lightly. As you mentioned, many of my colleagues are leaving behind young children. Some of
them are leaving behind aging parents. We’re all leaving behind our day jobs, which is how we make ends meet and pay our bills. But we know that
this a lot bigger than us. It’s a lot bigger than any one politician or any one political party. This about whether or not people can elect the
representatives of their choice, which is the most fundamental part of this representative democracy. And so, we felt like we had to take a stand.
And thankfully, we, over the past week, I think have really focused the country’s attention on this power grab in Texas. I know that the Google
searches for gerrymandering and redistricting are through the roof, which, you know, as a former teacher, that makes my heart happy that people are
using this opportunity to learn about our broken political system. And hopefully, it sparks the conversation about how to fix this democracy going
forward so that works for everybody.
MARTIN: The Republicans control the governor’s office. They control all the top state offices, you know, both United States senators, the attorney
general, the governor, et cetera, and both houses of the legislature. OK. But in 2021, Democrats did the same thing to deny Republicans a quorum.
That was not perceived as a success. Do you disagree with that assessment? I mean, the bill that had been — that you were trying to stop passed
anyway, what do you have to say about that?
TALARICO: Yes. I would disagree with that assessment, that analysis. When we broke quorum in 2021, it was over a voter suppression bill. And I should
say, this quorum break and that quorum break, those are the only two quorum breaks in 20 years in Texas, and this not a common occurrence because of
the tremendous cost, financial, personal, political, legal, it’s not something that should be undergone without a lot of thought and without a
lot of justification. It’s an extreme tool that the minority has in our toolbox, and it’s protected by the Texas State Constitution.
And so, we’re not breaking any laws. We’re not doing anything that’s not in the house rules. And it’s why it’s so strange that people are threatening
us with arrest and with vacating our seats because there’s a long tradition in Texas and in America. We’re here in the land of Lincoln. Abe Lincoln
broke quorum as a state senator back in 1840 by jumping out of a window at the Illinois State Capitol. So, this a time-honored tradition and it’s not
something that we undergo lightly.
And so, to answer your question. That last corn break in 2021 over the voter suppression bill, while it didn’t kill the bill, it did put a
national spotlight on the issue, which pressured our Republican colleagues to take the worst parts out of that bill, a ban on souls to the polls,
which is Sunday morning voting when a lot of African American churches take their members to have their voices heard in the Democratic process, that
was taken out of the bill. A provision that would’ve allowed Republicans in our state to overturn election results that they didn’t like, that was
taken out of the bill, all because of our quorum break and the attention that it galvanized across the nation.
MARTIN: But, you know, the governor is threatening to try to find a way to vacate your seats so that he can then appoint people to replace you, you
know, calling on the FBI, which of course Republicans do control now to go and bring you in. As it were, there was talking about deputizing, you know,
the Texas Rangers to somehow cross state lines, which they do not have the authority to do at present.
And then, they’re also talking about, I don’t know, how this would work, but charging you with bribery if you use any campaign funds to subsidize
the cost of this, you know, sort of experience. Do any of those, in your estimation, have any legal force at all?
TALARICO: No. And I’m not a lawyer. I’m a former public-school teacher, but I’ve got a lot of colleagues who are very talented lawyers. And we’ve
brought on a team of lawyers to help us given these threats. All of them agree that the legal theories underpinning these threats are laughable.
That doesn’t mean they won’t succeed. I mean, our courts are highly politicized, especially in Texas. And so, we’ll see if it works. But if
we’re just going by rule of law, you know, I think these should be laughed out of court.
And I think it’s equally laughable that Ken Paxton, the most corrupt politician in Texas, perhaps the most corrupt politician in the country, is
accusing us of bribery when he was literally impeached on a bipartisan basis in the Texas House of Representatives for his corruption and for
enriching himself and his donors.
So, you know, this hypocrisy on — at the highest level. And, you know, I think it’s important to realize that this redistricting attempt, this power
grab is corrupt too. We oftentimes think of corruption as just involving money, that is certainly one kind of corruption. But corruption is the
abuse of power. It’s the betrayal of the public trust, and this corruption at the highest level, trying —
MARTIN: So, talk about the maps then. It’s not exactly a secret what their objective is. I mean, their objective is at the request of the president,
he was very clear about this too, to withdraw the lines to give Republicans the advantage, or so they believe, in five additional seats, and that would
mean consolidating seats that are currently held by Democrats or just basically redrawing the lines. And even the Supreme Court has ruled that
you can’t redistrict on among racial lines.
Their argument is that this isn’t racial at all. This is partisan. And that that’s perfectly allowed. What do you say about that?
TALARICO: Well, one, I would disagree that this not racial gerrymandering. You take a look at these maps and the communities they divide, the voices
they dilute. It is primarily black and brown. It is African American communities and its Latino communities across the State of Texas. Two
growing populations in our state that they are disenfranchising with this racist and discriminatory gerrymandering.
But I also want to point out how crazy it is that they seem to be very OK admitting publicly that this a naked political power grab. That may be
legal, but it is certainly not moral and it’s certainly not supported by the vast majority of Americans. There was polling data released earlier
this week showing that this power grab in Texas is wildly unpopular across the State of Texas, including among Trump supporters because no one likes
cheating, but no one likes rigging an upcoming election.
People should be evaluated on their policies and their record. And if those policies are unpopular, then you should face consequences as an elected
official, regardless of your political party. And unfortunately, the president has been embroiled in corruption, receiving planes from a foreign
government. He’s kicking millions of people off their healthcare to fund tax breaks for billionaires. And those policies and those actions are
unpopular. And as the most powerful man in the country, he needs accountability. He needs to face consequences at the ballot box, not just
for all of us, but for him, that will make him a better president.
So, even if you’re a Trump supporter, him facing accountability in the next election will make him a better leader for all of us. And I hope we all
want that regardless of how we feel about the president.
MARTIN: It’s interesting that your governor, Governor Abbott, Greg Abbott, in a number of his interviews with — particularly with the conservative
media, you know, it has to be said, his argument is that the Democrats are — that it’s — A, the Democrats who are cheating by leaving the state. He
says that Texans stay and fight. And that you’re sort of — you’re abdicating your responsibility, but it’s also that you are the ones who are
not willing to stay and fight and argue it out. What would you say to that?
TALARICO: Well, we’re not running away from a fight. We’re running into the fight. We’re running into the frontlines of this fight and taking on a
lot of risk to do it. We’re the ones facing threats, including threats of violence and Greg Abbott and his fancy mansion surrounded by security
detail. So, you tell me who is more courageous in this fight.
And I’ll just say, again, that we are taking on all this risk so that we can fight for the people. I think there’s a stark moral difference here,
Greg Abbott and Texas Republican politicians are willing to disempower the people of Texas to protect their positions.
Texas Democrats are willing to give up our positions to empower the people of Texas. That is the starkest contrast that you can draw. And I’m happy to
have the people of our state judge us on those merits.
MARTIN: The other argument that people are making, and I’ve heard this again in the conservative media, is that Democrats have left for states
that are themselves heavily gerrymandered, that have a historic — there’s an historic precedent in many of these states for substantially
gerrymandered districts, which happen to favor Democrats. So, what would you say to that?
TALARICO: I’ve condemned those, maps including the one here in Illinois. Gerrymandering is wrong. Whichever party does it in whatever part of the
country it’s done, we have to get gerrymandering out of our politics. And you know, Democrats in Congress when they have the majority, they tried to
pass a ban on partisan gerrymandering for the whole country, in red states and blue states, and every single Republican in Congress voted against that
ban.
But gerrymandering is a bipartisan problem, and it has to end. All I want to say is that this — what’s happening here in Texas is a whole another
level of corruption and rigging of the system. It’s being done in the middle of the decade and it’s being done at the direct request of the most
powerful man in the country. And if people can’t understand how that is a lot more dangerous than typical gerrymandering then I think we’ve got work
to do to help people wake up to what’s happening in their name, in their government, because these politicians are trying to pick their voters
instead of voters picking their politicians. And if we walk down that road, I’m worried about where it leads.
MARTIN: And speaking of walking down that road, Democrats in some states like California and New York are saying, it’s time to fight fire with fire.
Governor Newsom in California, Governor Hochul in New York is saying, OK, Texas, if you’re going to go down that road, we’re going to try to amend
our state constitutions to do something similar. And some of them say this with regret, but others say, you know, it’s about time. What do you say
about that?
TRUMP: Well, I think that word if is very important. This should only be done in self-defense. I do not support any preemptive gerrymandering in
blue states. I only think this should happen if Texas Republicans go through with this power grab and cheat before the upcoming election. If
that happens, then all bets are off and the Democratic Party cannot unilaterally disarm.
You stop a bully by standing up to them, by looking them right in the eye and not blinking. And that’s exactly what Democrats need to do if the
bullies go forward with their plan in Texas.
MARTIN: So, what would victory look like for you at the moment? Do you see any movement here? Do you see any possibility that there might be, I don’t
know, a meeting of the minds that would allow you to come home?
TALARICO: I mean, I hope for that, I pray for that. But I am planning and my colleagues and I are planning for if that doesn’t happen. One, I think
the public backlash has been overwhelming, again, across the political spectrum, and that’s a good thing. Second, I think you’re seeing these blue
states with trifectas moving toward retaliation. I’m hopeful that that will convince my Republican colleagues and President Trump to walk back from the
brink.
Because what we don’t want is a national tit for tat descending spiral of partisanship. We don’t want that. I don’t think anyone wants that. I
certainly don’t. And so, my hope is that all this pressure from the public, from blue states, all of it catalyzed by our quorum break will put enough
pressure on Republican politicians to do the right thing and walk us back from the edge.
MARTIN: Can you envision a day when people might actually return to something called regular order?
TALARICO: I do. I think that, you know, history is a pendulum. And I do think 10 years of this Trumpian politics, this politics as blood sport,
this — where it feels more like professional wrestling than civic discourse, I do think people are getting tired of that. I think they see
through it. I think they’re ready for sincerity and honesty and hope again. I do think those traits are going to make a comeback. At least I hope so.
MARTIN: Texas State Representative James Talarico, thank you so much for speaking with us.
TRUMP: Thanks for having me again.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Standing up for the rules of the road. And finally, in the midst of airstrikes, endless killings and starvation, one small comfort is
bringing some of Gaza’s children together, that’s music.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: It is incredible to see this happening amidst the rubble. These students have been taking part in music lessons delivered by the Edward
Said National Conservatory of Music.
Today, their Gaza school does lie in ruins and many of their classmates have been killed. But even in the face of so much loss, teachers are
continuing classes in displacement camps and devastated buildings, giving some children at least a crucial outlet for creativity at a time of such
utter tragedy.
That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.