Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Canadian Opposition Leader and Former Rector and President, Central European University Michael Ignatieff; Interview with "The tale of Silyan" Director Tamara Kotevska; Interview with The New York Times Opinion Columnist Thomas Friedman. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired January 27, 2026 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The E.U. seals a trade deal with India and Canada begins a strategic partnership with China. Was Mark Carney right about our world order
rupturing? I asked former Canadian politician Michael Ignatieff.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): The father noticed the stork and started speaking to him. You poor bird. You are as lonely as I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- "The tale of Silyan," a new documentary following a farmer who found solace in an unlikely companion. I speak with the Oscar-nominated
director, Tamara Kotevska.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: It's entirely driven by the moods, attitudes and superstitions of a president who is more
unbounded than any president we've basically had in the modern era.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman tells Walter Isaacson why he thinks Trump's politics are not America first, but
me first.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
Now, a spate of new trade agreements show how America's global partners are hedging their bets against Trump's volatile tariff policy. In New Delhi,
India and the European Union finalize what they call the mother of all deals. And Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer heads to China today on a
four-day mission seeking new investment deals there. Canada is also negotiating a new strategic partnership with Beijing and President Trump
isn't happy about it. He threatened Canada with 100 percent tariffs in a post on Truth Social.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney saw all of this coming. Speaking in Davos, Switzerland, he called for middle powers to prepare for the end of
the rules-based international order. Warning quote, "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: We participated in the rituals and we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality. This
bargain no longer works. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Michael Ignatieff is a historian and a politician who preceded Carney as the head of Canada's Liberal Party. He calls Carney's warning a
wake-up call for Western democracies. Ignatieff is now President of Central European University and he joins me now from Vienna. Michael, welcome to
the program.
So, in your opinion, is Prime Minister Carney right, essentially saying that middle powers like Canada and E.U. members can only survive by now
admitting that we're in a world where, as he put it, the strong do what they can?
MICHAEL IGNATIEFF, FORMER CANADIAN OPPOSITION LEADER AND FORMER RECTOR AND PRESIDENT, CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY: I think he is right. I think we're
facing a world divided into three big blocks, the United States in the Western Hemisphere, China in East Asia, and Russia right at the border of
Europe. And none of these powers, China, Russia, and the United States, are respecting the sovereignty of other states, and that was the basis of the
rules-based international order.
So, we are in a new world. And he's saying, look, middle states like Canada, and most states are middle states. You know, most states don't have
this kind of nuclear power, financial power. These middle states then have to get together, begin to trade with each other, begin to play one big
power off against another, and that's a strategy for survival.
GOLODRYGA: So, does this strategy then from Mark Carney help stabilize a new type of system, or does it help break it down, the current system break
down sooner?
IGNATIEFF: That's a very good question. I think he hopes clearly that it stabilizes. Middle powers want stability. You know, our voters, our people
in the streets want stability. So, he's hoping that diversification of our economic links in Canada is going to strengthen our economy. It's not going
to put us into conflict with America. That's the problem.
[13:05:00]
He's hoping that he can do deals with China that don't so infuriate the Americans that they then clobber us with tariffs. So, he's playing a game
that's full of risks, and I think he's gambled that the old order is gone. He's gambling that a free trade agreement with the United States, like we
had from 1988 onwards, is gone.
So, if the old world is gone, let's try and build a new one, but you're quite right to make the point he wants stability. I don't think he wants to
blow -- he doesn't want to create further instability in the global order.
GOLODRYGA: Yet, he wasn't subtle in terms of speaking directly and responding directly to President Trump in some of the commentary, the
blistering commentary, that we heard from President Trump. Basically, I'm not even putting words in his mouth, he literally said Canada survives
because of America. Here's what Mark Carney then said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARNEY: We live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must
suffer what they must.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Canada gets a lot of freebies from us, by the way. They should be grateful also, but they're not. They should be
grateful to us. Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.
CARNEY: Canada doesn't live because of the United States. Canada thrives because we are Canadian.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Really impressive and memorable commentary then, and even defiance from the prime minister. We should also note, not just a
politician, he himself was a central banker, so he really knows what's at stake here.
But I'm wondering if the actions match some of the rhetoric, because then we turn to see President Trump threatening 100 percent tariffs on Canada
after the announcement of new trade deal with China. Now, the president's treasury secretary said that only applied to any free trade negotiations
and deals that they made, which Mark Carney said was not the case.
Given all of this, though, do you think this is Canada now really being put on the back foot and having to wonder how these types of threats impact the
country's economy?
IGNATIEFF: Look, we've been under threat really for a year. We were the first country in the line of fire when Trump took over and launched this
new tariff offensive that's gone global. So, we've had threats of this tariff level, that tariff level, and Carney, I think, is making the
judgment that he's not clear what's going to stick, what isn't going to stick. I think he's made the judgment, and this is a big risk, that the old
free trade world agreement that we had is dead and that he's going to have to negotiate something new.
But he's making a further assumption, which is that it's so much in America's interest to have free trade. We're so interdependent. The United
States depends on Canada as much, if not more than Canada depends on the United States, is the idea here. We ship a lot of electricity. We ship a
lot of oil. We ship a lot of lumber, ship a lot of aluminum, and that's going to feed through into domestic pressure on Mr. Trump.
If Mr. Trump, President Trump, imposes tariffs on Canada, it has blowback domestically. So, Carney is making the assumption that as a politician,
Trump will get this blowback and eventually come to a deal with Canada. And it's not just an economic blowback. The president is getting huge blowback
for the events that are occurring in Minneapolis.
So, I think Mr. Carney is making the assumption that Trump doesn't hold all the cards here and that it is possible to get some kind of deal, not free
trade, not the old CUSMA, but something that allows the Canadian economy to keep going. And as he diversifies.
You know, Carney has a problem, which is that he needs to diversify. He needs to do a lot to boost our productivity. He needs to make our economy
stronger. He needs, you know, about 10 years to get that work done. So, he doesn't, he has a time pressure, but he's gambling that Mr. Trump has a
time pressure, which is domestic pressure on the president that will force him to make a deal with Canada.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and at least publicly, we're not hearing that type of posturing, though, from the president or any of his top cabinet officials,
as you saw there in Davos.
[13:10:00]
And basically, all of the officials were saying publicly that the United States is the most powerful, the strongest country in the world, the
richest country in the world. And so, it's incumbent on other countries to then bow to whatever demands the United States is making, and then that
will then enrich their own economies.
I want to ask you about an op-ed in the New York Times from a columnist -- conservative columnist, Ross Douthat, who claims that Carney's plan for
middle powers to work together is probably easier said than done, and let me quote from it. "It's worth considering where the logic of Carney's
vision of world order might lead. Certainly, middle powers and economies can sometimes work together against greater ones. In crucial areas, though,
the new world order is not truly multipolar, and its middle powers are ill- equipped to bandwagon. Rather, they often face a binary choice in which the more independence they assert from the United States, the more they risk
subordination to China."
And that does seem to be what's playing out. While you have Canada and the United Kingdom really extending a hand to China and Xi Jinping, it does
seem that the E.U. collectively is being quite a bit more hesitant here. So, would you agree with that binary framing from Ross Douthat?
IGNATIEFF: I think Ross would say that, wouldn't he? I think it's an American perspective. I think he's forgetting this is a big world. You
know, we haven't mentioned anything about Latin America, huge economies. We haven't mentioned the enormous importance of Europe as a trading partner. I
don't think that Canada has a choice, a binary choice between you either cozy up to the Americans or you cozy up with the Chinese.
Canada will try as best it can to play one side off the other, infuriating both sometimes. But we've been at this for a very, very long time. The
country is still in place after, you know, a couple hundred years next door to the United States. And I think we don't believe that our choices is
submission to one power block or another.
And I think we have to remember that the world has changed much more than I think Ross Douthat is understanding. I mean, you know, 20 years ago, India
was not the economic giant that it is. Brazil was not the economic giant that it is. You know, looking forward, you can see Africa becoming a
tremendously important power. Europe right now is a huge power. All of these are potential markets. All of these are places where middle countries
like Canada can do business.
And as all of the countries in the middle range face this huge pressure from China and the United States, they're going to have a strong interest
in getting together and pushing this pressure back because no one wants to be a slave to, you know, the new imperial powers of the 21st century.
You know, I say this personally, and I was educated in the States. I love the United States, but no one is going to force Canada into a subaltern
dependent position on the United States. It's just not going to happen.
GOLODRYGA: So, there's the approach that Mark Carney is taking. And then there's the rhetoric, at least publicly, that we're hearing from the NATO
Secretary General Mark Rutte, who has developed quite a close relationship with President Trump and told members of the European Parliament just
yesterday that President Trump was, quote, "doing a lot of good stuff." Let's listen to what else he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK RUTTE, NATO SECRETARY GENERAL: So, when President Trump is doing good stuff, I will praise him. And I don't mind him publishing text messages.
And if anyone thinks here, again, that the European Union or Europe as a whole can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming. You can't. We
can't. We need each other.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, I think he's speaking more from a military national security perspective, but some -- you know, trade is also a big factor
here. Is he wrong in your view?
IGNATIEFF: I understand why Mark Rutte is saying this. He's the secretary general of an alliance that needs, you know, American commitment to
European security, so he will say that. But look, you know, we're already in a world now in which Europe is supplying all of the financial assistance
and most of the military assistance to keep Ukraine in the fight. That hardly indicates that the United States is the decisive player here.
Look, every European hopes that America will continue to make its basically nuclear guarantee of the security of Europe.
[13:015:00]
But if that goes, if Trump basically says, I'm not going to send, you know, American troops or, you know, soldiers or anything to die for Lithuania or
the Baltic or any of these states in Europe, then Europe will have to face that reality. And let's not forget that, you know, France has a nuclear
deterrent, Britain has a nuclear deterrent. You know, we need to think some very new and slightly scary thoughts.
But the assumption that Europe cannot defend itself with the United States is -- we just need to think new thoughts about that. And Canada needs to
think those thoughts about the Arctic, about all the security issues.
Americans have to understand that if Trump plays these games and they're mostly games, then everybody else has to think thoughts that they haven't
thought for 80 years. And that's what Trump, that's what Carney was saying at the Davos speech. We have to imagine the world anew, make new trade
partnerships, new defense partnerships, beef up our own investment in our own security because we cannot rely on the United States, period.
GOLODRYGA: And we've heard that from French President Emmanuel Macron over the past few years as well. I'm just wondering what if any lessons came out
of the whole Greenland debacle? Is it that to your point that some of these middle economies really coming together can stand up to the president at
least to save face and have him walk away from some of these threats, or did it expose more rupture within the alliance?
IGNATIEFF: I think it exposes more rupture between the United States and the rest of the alliance. And I think it shows quite a lot of unity on the
other side, the European side of the alliance who simply thought, look, are you telling me seriously, Mr. President, that you want to own territory in
a European nation state that's a member of NATO that fought side by side with you in Afghanistan? You seem to ignore the ways in which the alliance
has fought side by side with you. Are you seriously trying to do this? Because if you are, we're all pushing back.
I think Americans need to understand just how deeply this crossed every line that Europeans can live with in their relation to the Americans. And
now, does this end -- is the story over? We don't know. We -- Mr. Rutte is having discussions with Mr. Trump about a Greenland deal. We still don't
know what it means.
But it's pretty clear to me that Europe has had enough of this kind of game playing from the president of the United States.
GOLODRYGA: So, Europe is still relying on the United States as we continue to hear from European leaders and from the leaders of Ukraine that it is
really the United States that ultimately decides how and when this war in Ukraine can come to an end. Michael Ignatieff, thank you. Thank you for
your time. We appreciate it.
IGNATIEFF: Pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: Well, Donald Trump's challenges to the post-World War II international order are raising tensions in the Middle East, where the
region is caught up in an anxious waiting game to see if the U.S. plans to strike Iran. President Trump threatened military action over the regime's
crackdown on nationwide demonstrations, saying the military is locked and loaded and ready to go if Iran violently kills peaceful protesters.
Well, now, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group is in the Indian Ocean, prepared to assist in any potential operations. Correspondent Fred
Pleitgen is in Tehran with the details from Inside Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Iran's leadership is sending a very strong and defiant message to the United
States and specifically, of course, to the Trump administration. You could see it here on this gigantic poster on Revolution Square in Central Tehran.
The message on this massive poster is if you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind, obviously meaning if the United States attacks Iran, Iran
will retaliate in a massive way, which could, of course, lead to a major military confrontation between the United States and Iran and that's also
something that's on the minds of many of the people that we've been speaking to here as well.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I'm not sure what to say. I think they're all collaborating with one another against the interest of
the Iranian people.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I don't think Trump dares to attack. He's more bluffing.
PLEITGEN: All this, of course, comes as President Trump weighs his options on what to do next. The U.S. has pulled together a substantial military
force here in this region, but the Iranians also say they've replenished their stockpiles of ballistic missiles and are ready to hit back hard any
time.
Now, of course, all this comes in the wake of those large protests that happened here in Iran in the early part of January and when you're out on
the streets here, you can see that there are people who are still traumatized by what happened then.
[13:20:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): There were a lot of people out there in the streets when I had to leave home. I don't know what to say,
but the situation was very bad. Now, that the internet connection is restored, we only now know that so many were killed.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: That's Senior International Correspondent Fred Pleitgen reporting there. And do stay with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: We turn now to northeast Syria, where tensions remain high between the government and local Kurdish forces as a fragile ceasefire
appears to be largely holding. And attempts by Damascus to forcibly integrate the Kurds into Syria's military are meeting resistance. Senior
international correspondent Ben Wedeman is there as he assesses the impact of changing U.S. alliances and renewed threats to civilians and detainees.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BEN WEDEMAN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The men and boys are on high alert, machine guns at the ready at checkpoints around
the Kurdish controlled town of Malkia. They fear the Syrian army, fresh from victories against their fellow Kurds in Aleppo and Raqqa, is coming
their way.
For years we were allies, says Abdel Jabbar al-Tayyib, and then at the last moment the Americans go with Jolani, with ISIS.
Jolani, the nom de guerre of Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharra, until a decade ago a leader of an al-Qaeda affiliate. The U.S. position is that the
time has come for the Kurds to integrate into the Syrian army.
Next morning at a school hosting people fleeing the fighting, we found few were buying America's prescription. And the same goes to the U.N. and the
Security Council, says Abu Diyar. He came with his wife, his sons, and his grandchildren, like so many, uprooted time and time again. In a country
ripped apart by nearly 15 years of war, they're beyond the breaking point.
Aren't we human, asks this woman. We moved from Afrin to Shaba, to Aleppo, to Hasakeh. Enough, enough, we're dying.
Amidst the violence and chaos lies this desolate camp, home to more than 2,000 foreign women and children who flocked to Syria to live in the
Islamic State, now guarded by Kurdish forces.
Camp administrator Hakeem Ibrahim tells me the atmosphere turned menacing when the detainees heard the Kurds were under attack. They said ISIS is
returning, she tells me, and when that happens, we won't leave one of them alive.
One of the guards drove us around the camp. We were told it was too dangerous to walk. We went inside the tent of one woman from Britain,
afraid to be identified, but desperate to talk.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because I'm a different person. I'm not a daeshi. I'm not Syrian, no one. And I just -- I'm scared for my son.
WEDEMAN: Of course.
[13:25:00]
WEDEMAN (voice-over): Daeshi is colloquial Arabic for someone with the Islamic State. She said the U.K. revoked her citizenship.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was born in England. I was raised in England. I don't have anybody anywhere else. My mom, my dad, my brother, all live in
England.
WEDEMAN (voice-over): The other, much bigger camp for ISIS women and children, Al Hol, is now under Syrian government control. The U.S. is in
the process of moving the 7000 ISIS men who were in Kurdish-run prisons to more secure facilities in Iraq.
On the defensive, the Kurds are preparing for battle. These young volunteers load bullets into their magazines. They, too, accuse the U.S. of
betrayal. America has always pursued its interests, says this fighter who asks we not show his face. As soon as it gets what it wants, America sells
you out. That said, for them, it's time to go to the front.
Ben Wedeman, CNN, Northeastern Syria.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Ben Wedeman. And we'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Now, we turn to a new documentary telling a story that feels as timeless as a folk tale. "The Tale of Silyan" follows a farmer in North
Macedonia struggling to make a living off of the land. After his family moves to Germany for work, his loneliness is interrupted when he chooses to
take in a stork with a broken wing. Here's a clip from the trailer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Do you know the tale of Silyan? Silyan wasn't accepted amongst the other storks, because he was different
from them. He was very lonely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: "The Tale of Silyan" is directed by Oscar nominated documentary director Tamara Kotevska. And Tamara joins me now live from North
Macedonia. Tamara, good to see. Welcome to the program.
So, this documentary follows the story of Nikola who is farmer who is facing the perils of a struggling economy in North Macedonia. How did you
come about in finding Nikola and what stood out to you about him that made you want to make this documentary?
TAMARA KOTEVSKA, DIRECTOR, "THE TALE OF SILYAN": This documentary was primarily inspired by the white storks. So, I started with the idea of
following the white storks changing their food and migrational patterns. And starting to eat from landfills. And a lot of them were staying in the
country, they stopped migrating and they were dying out in the landfills.
So, for me it was interesting to explore the diversity between how they used to feed, which is following the farmers and eating from their land,
and how they feed now from the landfills. And by following them on the lands where the farmers were working, that's where I met Nikola and his
family, together with many other families.
[13:30:00]
But Nikola stood out because of just the very special connection he had to his family, the very special and open relationship and love they had. And
because of just the very special connection he had to his family, the very special and open relationship and love they had. And they were not shying
away from camera and they were just really cinematic characters. So, that's why I decided to work with them.
GOLODRYGA: No, they really became sort of, you know, mesmerizing to watch as a family, just as mesmerizing were the storks there. And it's
interesting to hear that that was what initially drew you to tell the story. And then you happen to come upon Nikola to be sort of the human
voice for the tale of what happens when an economy turns south. And you see these storks going from a life where they were feeding off of fresh fruits
and vegetables to then feeding off of any remnants and garbage in a landfill.
It's also based on a story, a childhood folk tale that you grew up loving, thus the name Silyan. Tell us a little bit about that.
KOTEVSKA: "The Tale of Silyan" is the very first tale I got to hear from my farming grandparents. I grew up also with storks around me when I was a
child, on the fields, in the countryside with my grandparents. So, it was a very popular tale. And it in a way shaped my love to animals. And the white
storks have been my favorite animals since forever. But I just never thought about using this tale until very late in this film when actually
Nikola found the stork and they started a really strong bond which reminded me of this tale.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, they started a strong bond after his family, his wife, his daughter, his son-in-law and their young daughter moved to Germany to find
more permanent and stable work. And Nikola was left struggling not only with the farm but also how to maintain providing resources and finances for
the family. Let's play a clip from the film as he's developed this bond with the stork while he's on FaceTime with his family in Germany.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Wow. He is such a beautiful stork. I want to go there.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): I want to go to grandpa.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We will. We will one day.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Grandpa.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Grandpa will come, don't worry.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Grandpa.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Hey?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Did you call about the fields?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): Nobody called. It's a wasteland here. Let me see Lina more.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): How come they didn't? You should lower the prices. If it's 3,000, give it for 2,000. If it's 2,000, give it
for 1,000.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): I'll think about it. I'll you another time for that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): We have to sell them. We need money. Whatever they give, they give.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Explain to our viewers what dilemma he's already struggling with here as it comes to -- relates to maintaining his farmland.
KOTEVSKA: Well, because the farmers were facing very serious crisis in Macedonia and this is happening for ages really. Many of them are forced to
migrate. So, we have one of the strongest waves of economical migration and many of them are forced to sell their lands. One of which is Nikola where
he's facing the internal conflict because he doesn't want to give up on this way of life. He loves this way of life but in the same time he has to
find a way to support his family and he has to find another job for himself to be financially stable.
And the majority of these farmers paradoxically end up on the landfills because they are in a critical age where they can't find a new profession,
a new job but they also can't do the old ones so usually they're taking this really low-key jobs on the landfills or cleaners or things like this
so he ends up working on the landfill but he still doesn't want to give up from his land.
GOLODRYGA: And then you see that stork really keeping him company and keeping him grounded as well giving him another mission to help restore the
stork back to health. Watching the documentary, I have to say Tamara feels like you're watching a feature film even the producers as we were talking
about this film in our morning meeting, we said we couldn't determine whether is this really a documentary are these actors.
And you yourself have previously noted that there's been a certain rejection of traditional documentary filmmaking amongst your peers so why
did you decide to approach this documentary from this lens?
[13:35:00]
KOTEVSKA: Well, first of all I always was very interested in new forms of filmmaking and not staying in one particular box and for me even in the
times of "Honeyland" and the films before "Honeyland," the short documentaries I've been making before, I was always trying to experiment
and find new engaging ways for audience to immerse in documentaries and to find a greater art in documentaries not just a journalistic approach or a
talking head approach.
Now, for mem, this is the art of cinema of how to shape reality into the tools that film craft is giving us. So, that's why I decided here to follow
that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you mentioned your previous Oscar nominated documentary, "Honeyland," and the parallels here are the roles that animals
play in this film and Chisinau is the country's largest white stork population. How did you manage to film these storks so closely?
KOTEVSKA: Well, it's been a long research really. We didn't know too much about storks and I had to get engaged with a lot of stork activists and
biologists who gave us the secrets of the stork world, where we can find them. They gave me and the team the pin locations, about a hundred pin
locations of nests throughout the country. And we were just going around, really, discovering logistics about which nest is the best, how we can
position ourselves to shoot.
Many times, we were approaching people's houses where we see a good balcony on the level where we can see or what kind of technology we can use. And
eventually, when we decided to use this particular drone, we had to build a bond in a way for the storks not to be afraid of it. So, it took some time.
GOLODRYGA: Well, the stork is a beautiful animal and you really come to appreciate it watching this film. I don't want to reveal too much about the
film but it does end on a cautiously hopeful note. It is a very clever engaging documentary. Tamara Kotevska, thank you so much. Good luck with
the film. Really appreciate you joining us.
KOTEVSKA: Thank you so much.
GOLODRYGA: And "The Tale of Silyan" is now streaming on Disney Plus and Hulu. We return now to the United States with a closer look at what is
happening in the White House and why. From ICE's violent crackdown in Minneapolis and Trump's threats to invade Greenland to the president's 70-
minute speech at Davos riddled with inaccuracies and verbal jabs. It's been a whirlwind of a few weeks.
Our next guest writes that Trump's politics are not America first, they're me first. New York Times opinion columnist Thomas Friedman joins Walter
Isaacson to discuss this rapidly changing world order with America and Trump at the helm.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Tom Friedman, welcome back to the show.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Great to be with you, Walter.
ISAACSON: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos this past week gave a speech that I think it may be the most significant or one of the most
significant in 80 years since Winston Churchill gave his Iron Curtain speech. And it was about, he said, the end of the American-led world order.
Is that what's happening now?
FRIEDMAN: Walter, you're asking a critically important question. I think it could be happening. I think that there are people within the Trump
administration who are acting in ways that will inevitably make it happen. But I don't think we're there yet. And I think there's a lot of pushback
against it.
If from nowhere else than the financial markets, because you saw how the market reacted so negatively by Trump seeming to engage in what Prime
Minister Carney called a rupture, basically, with the Atlantic Alliance.
ISAACSON: And Trump has talked about things that are America first. But you have a column saying he's not really dealing with America first, it's
kind of me first for him.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, you know, I think that if you look at the history of American foreign policy, Walter, which you have, going back to your
Kissinger book, you would say that the kind of rupture, the kind of 180- degree turn that we're seeing by the Trump administration on foreign policy, or attempted turn, is the kind of thing you'd only associate with a
major war or a huge economic explosion to the downside.
[13:40:00]
What is so striking about this moment is this is not happening in the context of a major war or some kind of economic collapse. It's entirely
driven by the moods, attitudes, and superstitions of a president who is more unbounded than any president we've basically had in the modern era.
He's a man of extreme views who is basically able to govern, at least for these two years, with the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the
White House entirely in his but not only in his hands, with a Republican Party that has basically chosen to surrender its responsibilities for
advice and consent from the Senate and spending power from the House to the president.
So, we've never seen this combination of a president with radical views on foreign policy unbuffered entirely by the administration.
ISAACSON: When Carney spoke at Davos, he talked about -- he took up the cause of Vaclav Havel, who talked about the collaborationist instinct and
how systems only work if people go along with things they know aren't true, like they put the sign in the window saying, workers of the world unite in
the old communist Soviet Union, even though they don't believe it. And he said it's time for the rest of the world, especially middle countries like
Canada, to take the sign down and say, this is all a fake, we're no longer going to play along. What do you make of that?
FRIEDMAN: You know, Walter, by happenstance, I spoke at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver last week, and I was introduced by the
director of the school. And in the process of introducing me, she referred to Prime Minister Carney's remarks in Davos, which had just happened the
day before, or two days before. And the audience just erupted in cheers. You got a lot more cheers than I did, OK?
And my Canadian host, you know, pointed out to me that in their grocery stores now, they have marked with Canadian flags, Canadian-made products.
This is really not only insulting to them, but frightening to them. But you know, the old saying, the enemy gets a vote. Canada is not our enemy, even
if Trump is trying to present them that way. The world will push back. It'll push back through markets. It'll push back by -- look at the price of
gold, just as a proxy. What is that about, OK? It's not just people, you know, worried about the instability of the moment, it's central banks
around the world putting their dollars into gold rather than U.S. treasury bills.
So, the world gets a vote. And Donald Trump can steamroll, you know, Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton and his own party, but, you know, the world
will push back. It will resist.
ISAACSON: One of the ways Canada is resisting is it created an agreement with China now on more open trade. Do you think we could possibly see China
taking advantage of all of this and becoming, in some ways, a de facto leader of the middle countries?
FRIEDMAN: You know, China will attempt to do that. It has its own problems, though, its own asymmetric economic relationship with so many
countries because it's overproduction. So, I don't think that would be easy. I don't think there's any replacing America.
But the reason China and Russia, Walter, have always voted Trump emotionally, if not otherwise, is because they actually understand
America's secret sauce. They understand our single most important competitive advantage, which is they have vassals, China and Russia, and we
have allies. And we have allies because we've had this kind of reciprocal relationship with them, or a relationship where we are actually overly
generous because we believe to strengthen the system, and when the system strengthens the biggest country in the system, us benefited the most.
So, we have allies. They have vassals. And the one thing they have both tried to do for decades is -- and that they've dreamt of doing is breaking
up NATO and breaking up the de facto American alliances in the Asian Pacific. And they never imagined a day where our own president would
facilitate that.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: One of the topics was Greenland, of course. And I never -- I thought when Trump was saying, we may invade Greenland, I thought that was
just his reality TV show thing. And indeed, I don't think he ever was thinking of invading Greenland. But wasn't it important to push our NATO
allies to do more in defense of Greenland?
FRIEDMAN: We have had a historic relationship with the sovereign in Greenland, the Denmark government, in partnership with the Greenland
government, that basically has allowed us, since World War II, to build and stock and deploy both forward radar and whatever fighter jets we want
anywhere in Greenland. We've had that relationship.
And the notion that either Russia or China are moving on Greenland is ludicrous. There's no proof of that. There is concern that as the ice
melts, there'll be a mineral grab over the Arctic. But the fact is, we have had all the military access to Greenland we need. Now, Trump insists,
because we don't own it, you know, somehow, we can't invest enough in it. Well, we don't own Germany, and we don't own Japan, but we've had forward
bases there, you know, since World War II.
So, the whole thing is just a ludicrous diversion by Trump, for whatever reason, or obsession, or obsession. And this notion I read that, oh, us
silly people, we take him literally, not figuratively. What the hell does that mean? When the president of the United States speaks, you're not
supposed to take him literally? When he tells you, you know, if you don't give me Greenland, you know, you'll see what's going to happen to you?
ISAACSON: Let me ask you about the Davos European internationalist consensus over the past 60 years or so. Didn't it get some fundamental
things wrong, including the rewards of globalization not being distributed fairly, that has caused this backlash and caused people like President
Trump and others around Europe and the world to have a populist backlash against this?
FRIEDMAN: Well, let's see. Last time I checked, more people grew out of poverty faster in India and China out of absolute poverty than any time in
the history of the world. Now, you can say that their growth out of poverty came at the expense of American middle class in the Midwest in America, and
that's true to some degree. And as a country, we should have done more to protect these people, to undergird them.
But I do think that globalization has its upsides and its downsides. And our job was to take advantage of the upsides and to cushion the downsides.
We didn't do enough of that in America when we needed to. At the same time, if you go to a lot of these towns now, they have, in their own way, lifted
themselves up and transformed themselves with new industries and whatnot. It's not perfect. It's nowhere near what it should have been.
But what's the alternative, Walter? Should we have opted for autarky? How did that work out when the world went that direction before World War I?
So, you know, there's an easy straw man at Davos, and there's an easy, comfortable self-congratulation there of both our extremes.
But at the end of the day, you know, the fact is that the world that we have today, the world that has been relatively more prosperous, more
peaceful than any period in history, is so much a product of America being the way America was and the fact that you had a U.S.-China trading
relationship in the middle of it that -- without both of which, well, I don't want to live to see that world, where both of those things break
down, because when that happens, you will miss this period when it's gone.
ISAACSON: Another reason, I think, perhaps for the populist backlash we're seeing in Europe and America was immigration, and immigration going too
far, it seemed. Did we get some of that wrong, and is there a way to try to solve that issue?
FRIEDMAN: I think we got it absolutely wrong, and I think Democrats, and particularly the last administration, have a lot to answer for.
You know, I've been advocating the same message on immigration now since Trump really made it an issue in his first administration. I'm for a very
high wall. I'm for a very high wall from one end of the Mexican border to another with a very big gate, OK, because unless you can assure Americans
that we are controlling our border, you are going to lose a lot of them when it comes to immigration.
[13:50:00]
I'm super pro-immigration. I'm for the high-end, high-educated immigration, and I'm for any Haitian who can build a boat out of milk cartons and get to
our shores. Wow, I want that person, OK? I want both the high energy and the high IQ immigrants, but we are not going to get them because we will
not have a political consensus unless we can control the border.
And that's why I urged in my column yesterday my brothers and sisters in Minnesota, whom I'm so proud of, for protecting their law-abiding,
hardworking, culturally enriching neighbors, even if some of them are here illegally, OK? But at the same time, it's vital to me that Democrats, if
they want to do well in the midterms need to make it very clear, they're for a high wall with a big gate. They're for legalizing immigration.
Now, both parties, you know, have had challenges on this, but the fact is Democrats came together under the Biden administration with Senator
Lankford of Oklahoma with a plan to actually overhaul all of immigration reform to give us what I call a high wall with a big gate, and Donald Trump
killed the bill because he wanted to use this as a wedge issue.
ISAACSON: Tell me, why is it coming apart so badly in Minneapolis? Why has this become the focal point for things?
FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, Minnesota is a classic example of a community that had some very rapid demographic changes, maybe too quickly for the
state to fully absorb, both immigrants from Somalia and more broadly. And so, that tension was there. At the same time, it is a community that has a
legacy of a real social consciousness and wants to kind of make this work and therefore, you know, made itself a Minneapolis, a so-called sanctuary
city that wasn't going to arrest or facilitate the arrest easily of illegal immigrants.
And Trump knew it was a perfect place to try to, rather than calmly sit down, bring together, say, let me create a bill, you know, for legalizing
immigration and controlling the border, let's work together with the people of Minnesota, he saw this as just a great way to pursue his own politics,
which is the politics always of division, not addition. How do I divide, divide, divide, divide, divide? And so, I win the election by 50.00001
percent. And that kind of leadership in this kind of hugely complex situation will give you this kind of explosion.
But just to say one thing, I really emphasize this in my column, Democrats need to understand that there are a lot of voters in this country, and I'm
one of them, and independents who are not good with just an open border. In my case, it's because I want immigration. I want more of it, but it's got
to be legal immigration. And if we don't control the border, you will not have a national consensus for that. And that would be a tragedy.
ISAACSON: Tom Friedman, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
FRIEDMAN: A pleasure, Walter. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: And finally, today we commemorate the 6 million Jews murdered during World War II. Today marks Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 81st
anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the notorious concentration camp.
Earlier Tuesday, people gathered outside the ruins of Gas Chamber 4 to pay their respects to the men, women, and children exterminated by the Nazis.
Someone who experienced these horrors firsthand is Tova Friedman, one of the youngest survivors of Auschwitz. She was just five years old when she
was taken there and where many of her family members were killed. Back in 2022, she spoke to Christian about growing up in the shadow of such
violence and why she felt compelled to share her experience in her book, "The Daughter of Auschwitz."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Can I just start by asking you, I mean, this is just monumental, the story, the history, and
the way you have survived to tell it. But what made you, after all these years, decide to put it down in a book?
TOVA FRIEDMAN, HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR AND AUTHOR, "THE DAUGHTER OF AUSCHWITZ": I want to let people know what prejudice and the fear of the other can
cause in humanity, that humanity has to be careful how they behave towards each other, because, you know, the Holocaust didn't happen in one day. It
had time to get worse and worse.
[13:55:00]
And, you know, they say you first burn books and then you burn people. So, it's a warning, it's a type of a warning.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: A type of a warning. And with anti-Semitism again on the rise in the present day, Tova's testimony is an important reminder of the
devastating consequences of unchecked bigotry and hatred.
All right. Well, that does it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
