Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Venezuelan Opposition Leader, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and "The Freedom Manifesto" Author Maria Corina Machado; Interview with "Israel: What Went Wrong?" Author and Brown University Professor of Genocide Studies Omer Bartov; Interview with "Superpower Showdown" Co- Author and Journalist Bob Davis. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 11, 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]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're doing well in Venezuela, right? It's working good?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Four months after the United States snatched Maduro from the Venezuelan presidency, does the country have a democratic future? I asked
exiled opposition leader and Nobel laureate Maria Corina Machado.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We've not done well on the propaganda war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: As Israel's standing with Americans continues to plummet, I speak to genocide scholar Omer Bartov about his new book, "Israel: What
Went Wrong?" and why he believes the nation is facing a moral and political reckoning.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOB DAVIS, CO-AUTHOR, "SUPERPOWER SHOWDOWN" AND JOURNALIST: Unemployment shot up. People were laid off constantly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- how the flood of Chinese imports reshaped America and what it reveals about the future of global trade. Veteran journalist Bob Davis
joins Hari Sreenivasan ahead of Trump's high-stakes summit in Beijing.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
A leader deposed a newly pliant regime and enriched uranium safely removed from the actual country. What sounds like President Trump's ideal endgame
for Iran is in fact already unfolding in Venezuela. Four months after the U.S. invaded Caracas and captured the leader Nicolas Maduro, major oil
companies are working to ink production deals as the White House pushes to unlock Venezuela's vast energy reserves.
The United States Department of Energy has announced that in fact enriched uranium was removed from the country and flown to South Carolina. Another
sign of the close ties being forged between Washington and the interim president, Delcy Rodriguez.
But as Trump revels in this new partnership, what has become of the promise of democracy and democratic elections? It's a question on the mind of
millions of Venezuelans, including our first guest tonight. That is Maria Corina Machado, the opposition leader in exile. After a risky departure to
accept her Nobel Peace Prize late last year, which she promptly then gave to President Trump, but Maduro's top lieutenant, Delcy Rodriguez, is in
charge now.
So, where does that leave the country's most vocal democracy campaigner? Well, she joined me from Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Maria Corina Machado, welcome back to our program.
MARIA Corina MACHADO, VENEZUELAN OPPOSITION LEADER, NOBEL PEACE PRIZE LAUREATE AND AUTHOR, "THE FREEDOM MANIFESTO": Thank you very much,
Christiane.
AMANPOUR: I want to ask you about your plans. I know you're, you know, you're on a book circuit now. You've just come out with your new book,
"Freedom Manifesto," and we're going to talk about that. You're doing a book tour in the U.S. But in March, March 1st, you said you were going back
very shortly to Venezuela. Now, that was some 10 weeks ago. You're not back. Do you plan to go back?
MACHADO: Yes, I do, Christiane. When I came out, when I escaped my country in December to go to Oslo, the first thing I said is I am planning to go
back as soon as possible. I have a few objectives to accomplish. I've been working very hard on those, to reach out to people, to align all, you know,
vectors for a democratic transition in Venezuela, to show the huge potential that a free, democratic, prosperous Venezuela has, not only for
people, but for the whole hemisphere, and also to reach out to thousands of Venezuelans in a huge diaspora. So, I've been doing that, and I plan to go
soon back. So, you say soon.
AMANPOUR: Can I pin you down? Is it a week, two weeks? I'm asking you because there's reporting that President Trump suggested when you met him
that you don't go back yet.
[13:05:00]
I don't know whether it's concerns about your safety, whether it's concerns about the current, you know, way that Venezuela is being run alongside the
United States with Delcy Rodriguez, the former vice president in charge. Do you know, can you tell me why he suggested that you shouldn't go back?
MACHADO: Well, actually what I've spoken and in detail about this, my return is with the secretary of state, and the reasons that we have
discussed are precisely security, and not only mine, I'm talking about thousands and thousands of political leaders, social leaders that have been
forced to flee, and that also want to go back to accompany, you know, this will of our people, of the nation that has, you know, proven our democratic
vocation, and are decided to move ahead into transition so that, to democracy, so that we can bring our children back home, which is the, you
know, the long, the desired, you know, desperate intention all mothers have in our country.
AMANPOUR: Look, the president appears to have his own version of how Venezuela should be run. He believes it's going very well with his chosen,
hand-picked person, cooperating, Delcy Rodriguez. He's just lifted sanctions from her. He says we did Venezuela incredibly well. He praises
Delcy Rodriguez. We have a great situation going over there with a wonderful president, Delcy, and she's doing a great job, and they're all
doing a good job. That's President Trump.
As you know, Maduro's regime is pretty much largely intact. Do you consider this situation a good job? Do you consider it permanent or interim, but do
you consider it necessary for the moment, as Trump apparently does, and Rubio?
MACHADO: I believe there have been very important steps taken, Christiane. First of all, it's starting to dismantle our repressive regime that has
committed crimes against humanity. There were over 1,000 political prisoners on January 1st. Today, more than 600 of them have been released.
There are many that are still in prison and other crimes that are being still committed.
Just this week, we found out that Victor Hugo Quero, whose mother has been looking desperately for him because he was abducted on January 1, 2025, I
mean, 16 months ago, we just found out this week after she went from jail to jail, from hospital, and it was denied that he was there, that the
regime accepted, confessed that he had been killed, dead. He had been dead since July 2025. I mean, nine months ago.
And imagine this, the cynicism of this regime that denied the amnesty under the so-called amnesty law of Delcy Rodriguez, knowing that he was already
dead. I mean, this is the kinds of things that are happening right now in Venezuela. This on the human right side.
On the social side, yes, people are starting to speak out. First, it was in churches, then in universities. Finally, we're seeing tens and hundreds of
people going out all around the country, speaking out and denouncing the horrible economic situation that Venezuela is living in right now.
I mean, 86 percent of our population lives in poverty. Our children go to school only twice a week. A teacher earns one dollar a day. I mean, this is
horrific from an economic perspective, social situation, and these tensions are growing.
So, there's hope that this process will move along, and we trust what we've heard from the U.S. government, that this is a three-stage plan. And the
third part of it is an electoral process with free and fair elections so that we can have a democratic transition to democracy.
AMANPOUR: Do you accept what Marco Rubio said in terms of a deadline for these democratic elections? He basically said, according to the New York
Times, that he wants to see a democratically elected president of Venezuela before Trump leaves office in 2029. So, we're talking three years at least
from now. Is that the timing that you would agree to?
MACHADO: Well, actually, that's not the timing that I've been discussing with Secretary Rubio or other officials in the United States. Actually,
what they have said is that these three phases are not sequential, but that they can overlap, that the first phase of stabilization was already
completed, and that actions on the third area, which is a democratization and re-institutionalization of Venezuela, are already taking place.
[13:10:00]
And at the end, Christiane, it is very important to understand that, you know, the characteristics, the condition of a Venezuelan society. Look, we
are a united, cohesive society. I would say like no other in this hemisphere. We do not have religious, racial, regional, social, or
political fractures. 90 percent of our people say we want to have free and fair elections. We want to have dignity. We want to have freedom, justice,
because we want our families reuniting in Venezuela.
Remember, a third of the Venezuelan population, roughly nine million, have been forced to flee. They want to go back. We want to re-encounter, but
only if the criminal regime that once forced them out is dismantled, and we have, you know, the certainty that we can live with justice, freedom, and
opportunities, which is, by the way, what the big investors also look for. They want rule of law.
Venezuela is currently in the last place globally by the World Justice Project, which ranks 143 countries globally. Venezuela is in the 143rd
place right now. So, to have long-lasting and huge investments, to take advantage of Venezuelan huge potential in oil, gas, energy infrastructure,
minerals, rare earth, and so on, you have to have rule of laws, and a regulatory framework that is predictable and sustainable, and that can only
happen after we have free and fair elections.
AMANPOUR: So, I need to press you on this then. Is 2029 too late? Do you want -- when do you want to see elections? And secondly, you talked about
all of this can only happen when the criminally responsible Maduro regime is gone. Do you include Delcy Rodriguez in that description, or do you
accept her as a transitional figure?
MACHADO: Well, regarding to your last question, we have offered privately and publicly our willingness to have a negotiated transition in which
incentives and guarantees are given to those that facilitate this process.
The wide majority of the Venezuelans that have been involved with a regime, they did it for fear. And we have opened our arms and given them the
security that they will be part of this recovery of Venezuela. This is not revenge. We will not do to them what they did to us. We will guarantee they
will have safeguards and rights respected.
But you have to understand that when 90 percent of the people is determined to be free, a nation that has a single purpose, that is organized, that has
such a democratic culture and history as Venezuela has, we will never give up. We will never surrender. Venezuela will be free.
AMANPOUR: Yes, I understand that, but you're not answering my question about Delcy Rodriguez. I understand everything you're saying about amnesty
and all the rest of it. Is she, according to you, the acceptable transitional figure?
MACHADO: She will have incentives and I think it's her -- you know, her last opportunity to have the possibility to be recognized as a figure that
helped peaceful and order transition to democracy to Venezuela. She has an opportunity as the armed forces that I have to insist more than 80 percent
of their members also want a transition to democracy soon.
And regarding the timing, Venezuelan people want elections as soon as possible. From a technical perspective, it requires between seven and nine
months once you take the political decision to move forward, naming a new electoral council. That's the step that should be taken as soon as
possible.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, I'm hearing from you that the benchmark of 2029 is too long. So, the next question then is, are you -- I know that you and your
party, your party won the last elections according to all independent analysis, according to your own election workers, according to all the
figures that were broadcast, the Maduro regime stole that election. Remember, Delcy Rodriguez was the vice president at that time.
Are you claiming position as leading opposition figure, or is there Leopoldo Lopez? Is there Enrique Martez, who by the way was Trump's guest
at the State of the Union? Are you also competing for the mantle of opposition leader?
[13:15:00]
MACHADO: Look, the Venezuelan opposition is today more united than ever, and it is because this transcends political parties. This has turned into a
social movement. I won the primaries with 92 percent of the votes. Maduro was afraid to run against me and ban me, and even so, we won the election
with almost 70 percent of the votes, and we proved it.
And I want to insist on this issue that you just highlighted, because perhaps other democratic movements would have sticked to that result and
say that it had to be enforced. In a show of trust in our people and our willingness to help the U.S. government plan to move forward, we have
accepted to re-legitimize that will of the people and participate in new elections, in which I believe anybody, anybody who wants to be a candidate
should run and have the people decide. That's what our Constitution says. That's what our people deserve. That's what we have gained with 27 long
years of suffering, but that has brought our country closer together, and that's why I insist this movement is unstoppable. Venezuela will be free.
AMANPOUR: And finally, tell me about "The Freedom Manifesto," the title of your book. If you can give me in a couple of bullet points your main
manifesto promise.
MACHADO: Well, thank you for this. This is an extraordinary testament of voices of mothers, sons, brothers, couples that have been separated, that
have been humiliated, but that have risen with dignity, with courage, with resilience. This is the voices of millions of Venezuelans that want to show
the world that you can confront a cruel tyranny, but at the same time, from within the nation, you can have the force of the people, and extraordinary
things that that can accomplish.
They told us it was impossible to move ahead, to bring a country back together, to defeat Maduro, and now to move ahead into the transition. We
have made possible what they say it's impossible, and once again, the Venezuelan people will do it. That's the spirit, and the protagonists of
this story are the Venezuelan people. That's what "The Freedom Manifesto" shows the world.
AMANPOUR: OK. And let me ask you a cheeky question then. Was it worth giving your Nobel Prize medal to President Trump?
MACHADO: The answer is yes, because I know that Venezuela will be free, and because President Trump is the only head of state that has risked the
lives of some of his citizens for the freedom and democracy in my country.
AMANPOUR: Maria Corina Machado, thank you so much for joining us.
MACHADO: Thank you, Christiane. My pleasure.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And just like that, shortly after our interview, after extolling the virtues of President Trump and freedom and democracy, a post by Fox
News' John Roberts claims that President Trump is, quote, "seriously considering a move to make Venezuela the 51st state of the United States of
America."
Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, since the start of their joint war against Iran, American support for Israel has fallen. 60 percent of Americans now hold a negative
view of Israel. For Israelis, growing concern that one of their key strategic assets, American support, is dwindling away. And with an election
looming, pressure is mounting on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has blamed social media for the shift in public opinion. Take a listen.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: In war, armies sometimes miss, and civilians die, and these are mistakes. These are not deliberate things
that happen. Israel is besieged on the media front, on the propaganda front, and we've not done well on the propaganda war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But is it really just a messaging problem? In his new book, "Israel: What Went Wrong?," Omer Bartov traces Israel's present crisis back
to the tensions and decisions rooted in its founding. He was born on a kibbutz in Israel, and he was raised in a Zionist household and served for
years in the IDF. He's now one of the leading scholars of Holocaust and genocide studies, and he caused controversy when he declared Israel is in
fact committing genocide in Gaza. He joins me now from Massachusetts. Professor Omer Bartov, welcome back to our program.
OMER BARTOV, AUTHOR, "ISRAEL: WHAT WENT WRONG?" AND PROFESSOR OF GENOCIDE STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY: Thanks very much for having me, Christiane.
Nice to be again with you.
AMANPOUR: Yes, and we are continuing a very poignant and an important conversation. We've spoken several times over this very difficult question.
So, let me first ask you about the title of your book, "Israel: What Went Wrong?" I mean, it's a pretty provocative title.
BARTOV: Yes, and people have responded in various ways to it. Some people say nothing went wrong. Some people say it was always wrong or that I'm
wrong. But what I'm trying to trace in the book is really the question of how did Zionism, which was a movement that began in the late 19th century
intended to liberate emancipate Jews who were living in East Central Europe, who were being persecuted, subjected to more and more violence and
to create something, a better living environment for Jews, how that movement was transformed into a state ideology that increasingly supported
m- militarism, expansionism became increasingly racist, and since October 2023, has also supported genocide. That's the sort of tragic transformation
that my book tries to trace.
AMANPOUR: You say you sum up as whether it has moved from that progressive, you know, society based on justice to a state ideology of
ethno-nationalism. Now, look, I want to bring up the genocide issue because, and then we'll go back to your book and on the transformation of
Zionism, because this caused a lot of controversy.
We spoke to you because you are a leading genocide and Holocaust studies professor, and you're at Brown University. So, at first, back in November
of 2023, shortly after October 7th, you wrote for The New York Times saying and warning that, while genocide is not taking place in Gaza, things will
get worse. Here is what you told me then.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARTOV: I'm not convinced that right now there is intentional killing of civilians, but there is totally disproportionate killing of civilians,
disproportionate in a relationship to the military goals declared by Israel itself. So, in that sense, I think we are close but we're not there yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: And Professor Bartov, you followed up with a second op-ed saying that we are in fact there yet, and I talked to you about that. Here's what
you said in your second go around on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARTOV: There is no real resistance anymore, and the question is then, what is this war about? What is it trying to accomplish? And on the ground,
what you're seeing is it's actually a war of annihilation of the entire Gaza Strip.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: So, you've seen, you know, that so many people have come to that perspective, even many very distinguished Israelis. What were you trying,
who were you trying to address there? Who were you trying to talk to with those statements?
BARTOV: So, yes, let me say that I retrace these debates also in the book, and I try to explain how I changed my position over time. When I published
that op-ed in the New York Times in early November 2023, I was hoping that someone in the Biden administration at the time would listen. Because as I
wrote there, there were both clear signs that there had been war crimes, crimes against humanity. About 10,000 civilians had been killed already
then in the first four weeks of the campaign in Gaza.
I was hoping that the Biden administration would listen, because we all knew at the time that if the U.S. decided to tell Netanyahu, you have two
weeks to wrap this up. And if you don't, then you'll be on your own, meaning we won't supply you either with military hardware or with
diplomatic support, then Israel would have stopped as it did eventually when Trump told it to stop. But the administration didn't listen.
We could have been at a point where we would have said, yes, there were war crimes, there was immense violence, it almost became genocide, but it
didn't. And because the administration did not put its foot down and allowed Israel to continue, by the spring of 2024, it became clear that the
statements that had been made by Israeli politicians and generals right after October 7th, which had a genocidal content, were not only made at the
heat of the moment, but were actually part of what we saw later on was a pattern of operations by the IDF in Gaza intended to ethnically cleanse the
entire strip.
Because that failed, because the Palestinians had no place to run to, the Egyptian border was closed and obviously Israel's borders were closed, that
attempted ethnic cleansing, which failed, turned into a genocidal operation. This was what I was trying to warn about. I wrote about it then
in the summer of 2024 and repeated that in July of 2015.
AMANPOUR: Instead, the Biden administration sanctioned the ICC for attempting to hold both Israeli officials and Hamas officials accountable
for what had happened on October 7th and on the ensuing war on Gaza. So, the Biden administration sanctioned them.
Now, you hear Prime Minister Netanyahu, who's never been held accountable, unlike many, many other Israeli prime ministers after all the wars that
have been fought, they've all had to answer to a review. He's now telling American television that actually, at least in the clip that we just
played, that actually we just have a propaganda problem, that we're victims and -- you know, of this lack of support now or this dropping support in
the United States for Israel.
What do you make of Netanyahu's justification for what's happening in the country of your greatest support?
BARTOV: Well, what is extraordinary is, first of all, that Netanyahu, who was the head of government during the fiasco of October 7th, we know now
that the government and the military had all the information about an attack that was going to come from Hamas and he did nothing about it, that
he will be able to complete his term of four years as prime minister, never even thinking of resigning in shame.
He's trying now -- and he's speaking only to the American media, he hardly ever speaks in Hebrew to the Israeli media, he's trying now to fool people
again into saying, well, some mistakes are made, you know, in war things happen. Whereas in fact, we know that there was a concerted plan about
which he spoke on various occasions to empty the Gaza Strip of its population.
We know that Netanyahu said, for instance, and that was about a year ago, he said, we have -- they cannot go back to their homes, meaning the
Palestinians in Gaza, because Israel destroyed their homes, and our only problem is to find countries that will take them in.
[13:30:00]
Of course, that problem has not been resolved, no one will take them in, and therefore they're living in horrifying conditions now, in less than
half of the territory of what had been one of the most congested places in the world before October 7, 2023. So, yes, he's lying, but he has been
doing that as part of his career.
AMANPOUR: And of course, we can't go in and actually fact check and tell the truth, because the Israeli government refuses to allow any independent
journalists still into Gaza, even after a so-called ceasefire. But let me ask you about your experience, because as I said, you were born to a
Zionist family, you believed in this, you've told us your reasons for thinking that it's moved away from the initial promise, but you were also
in the IDF, you served in Gaza in the 1970s, and you write, even then, it was a bad place, 350,000 people hopeless and sad.
Well, today, there are just over 2 million people more than hopeless and sad, not just because of the Israeli occupation, but also because of the
horrendous leadership of Hamas that has led them down this road to total perdition. What was it like for you as a young soldier, and did you have
any idea of what was going to come?
BARTOV: Look, I was very young at the time, I think I was 19 or 20, I served for about a year around Gaza, my battalion command was in Gaza, I
was serving in northern Sinai. So, I was there a lot, I served as an occupation soldier, as I write in the book, in Al Arish. And I did have
that very difficult feeling of being an occupation soldier, not knowing why I was there and feeling the gazes of the population on me through shuttered
windows. But did I know, did I entirely understand? No, of course, I was too young and I'd been very well socialized into Israeli society.
I will say that even before I went to the military, so as a 17-year-old, we used to demonstrate against the occupation, and the occupation then was
very young, right? This was in 1970-71, the occupation began in 1967. And we carried posters saying, occupation corrupts. And we picked up that
slogan someplace, and we had no idea how long that occupation would last and how deeply it would corrupt Israeli society.
So, much of what you see today, the indifference of the Israeli population, the vast majority, I'm not talking only about the far right or the
supporters of the government, but many supporters of the opposition, are indifferent to what happened to Palestinians in Gaza. This mix of
indifference and denial is the consequence of decades of occupation, which led to dehumanization of Palestinians, and in turn led to dehumanization of
Israelis, vis-a-vis Palestinians, thinking of them as the minister of defense at the time, Yoav Gallant, said immediately after October 7th, they
are human animals and we will treat them as such. That is a sense that was shared by large parts of the Israeli population and remains so to this day
as a result of this decades-long, increasingly oppressive and brutal occupation.
AMANPOUR: You know, you were talking about the book and talking about, you know, what the vast majority of Israelis think, as you've just laid out.
Your book has not been sold in Israel nor translated into Hebrew, and there's such a huge, colossal intellectual, spiritual, religious, political
war between Israelis and the diaspora on these various issues.
I've heard, you know, families who can't talk to each other anymore, who believe, half believe one thing, half believe the other thing. You must
have understood that you were going against your own tribe, that you would probably face a huge amount of blowback and pushback. You're not even
published in the -- you know, in the homeland of your birth.
BARTOV: Yes. I mean, I don't like to think of myself as a member of a tribe, but yes, of course, I knew that.
AMANPOUR: You know what I mean, though, right? It's a political term of art.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Yes, I do. I know, but I just have always resisted it for most of my life, and I won't change now. But I am an Israeli. I feel
strongly about that country. I care about it.
[13:35:00]
I still think I have very good friends there, although after the past two years, maybe I have somewhat fewer friends, and I care about its future. I
did want the book to come out in Hebrew. I have written to many publishers in Israel, including very left-wing publishers, and none of them has either
dared or wanted to publish the book.
But there was an interview with me that was published in Haaretz a few days ago, first in English, and then 10 days later or so, also in Hebrew. And
many people were appalled by what I said, because I said that I thought that Zionism had become a state ideology that must be discarded, that must
be done away with, that has become racist, Jewish supremacist, violent, and now genocidal. And the state has to remake itself and has to find a way of
being a different state, a state for all its citizens, and a state that will know how to share the space that it controls between Jews and
Palestinians.
But not everyone was against that. There have been people who think like me, and I wish that more people spoke out, not in order simply to condemn,
because condemning is easy, but to try to trace the roots of how we got there, and to try to understand through that as a historian, that's what I
do, to see where we went wrong and how things can be fixed.
AMANPOUR: OK. Let me just ask you a final question. We're running out of time. Do you think one of the things, as you write, where did it go wrong,
was the, they never ever talked about the Holocaust and the Nakba? It was never intertwined in terms of the origin stories of both peoples. Do you
think if that had been more told, it might have made a difference or not?
BARTOV: Yes. I mean, a major point, the crucial moment is of 1948. 1948 is the year in which the state was established. 1948 is the year in which the
vast majority of population of the Palestinians were kicked out, the Nakba. 1948 is also the year in which the Genocide Convention was endorsed with
strong support from Israel at the time.
So, facing up to the past, facing up to the wrongs of the past, is crucial in order to move forward, I agree. But the Holocaust became in also
something very different from simply a moment in history that one has to commemorate, a research which I have done for most of my career. It has
become a political tool from the 1980s on, which has given license to Israelis to say that any resistance to them, and resistance comes from
those that you occupy and oppress, brings with it the danger of another extinction, of another Holocaust. And therefore, those resistors have to be
wiped out with any kind of violence, regardless of any international law or agreements.
AMANPOUR: It really is fascinating. It's one of the most important stories in the world. Professor Omer Bartov, thank you so much indeed for joining
us. "Israel: What Went Wrong?"
We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, President Trump is due to meet China's Xi Jinping in Beijing this week. It's the first visit by a U.S. president in nearly a
decade. For the world's two largest economies and militaries, trade will likely be high on the agenda. After their intense tariff war last year,
which ended in a truce. Journalist Bob Davis has been keeping a close eye, and he joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what a small town's recovery from
the impacts of Chinese imports reveals about the United States economy.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Bob Davis, thanks so much for joining us. You have been covering U.S. and
China's economic relations and fallout from trade wars for a long time. Your recent piece took you back to Hickory, North Carolina, a town you
followed over time. You've seen these different cycles at work. Tell us a little bit about Hickory. What drew you to it over the years?
BOB DAVIS, CO-AUTHOR, "SUPERPOWER SHOWDOWN" AND JOURNALIST: Well, my first visit was in 2016 when the Journal was trying to figure out, and everybody
else, the Trump phenomenon. And part of it clearly was, you know, a populist revolt or rebellion, and China played a big part of that.
So, we were looking for a place to set a story, and Hickory just wound up to be a perfect candidate, journalistically speaking. It was a small city,
30,000 people or so, in the southeast, which was where the impact of China was felt enormously. They tended to be small cities in the southeast and
the Midwest that had a single industry, and Hickory's industry was the furniture industry. It was at one time kind of the furniture capital of the
U.S.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, how is it different today?
DAVIS: Well, you know, back then we were looking, as I say, for the impact of China. What was truly interesting to me -- and these people had worked
in the furniture factories for years and years, and many of them had come from different parts to the country to work in Hickory over what were
called the hillbilly highways, you know, the main highways from Tennessee to West Virginia and so on, and looked like, you know, really good jobs.
And they were really good jobs.
In Hickory in 2000 or so, the median income was higher than the national average. The unemployment rate was lower than the national average. But
after China joined the WTO in 2001, the impact was enormous and immediate, and unemployment shot up. People were laid off constantly. Furniture
factories were closing left and right.
You know, and the interesting thing was I'd go and I'd talk to workers there, and I'd say, like, so what do you think happened? And if I asked
them specifically a question about China, they would go off on China. But mainly what it was, without asking, if I would just ask in an open-ended
way, the first thing they would say is they blame their bosses. They blame their bosses for selling out, selling out to the Chinese.
They could understand why China would, you know, come in and, you know, sell, but it was their bosses that they blamed. And it was a very -- it was
the kind of thing that Donald Trump and also Bernie Sanders picked up on.
SREENIVASAN: So, really that economic frustration translated into political identity.
DAVIS: Yes, definitely, without a doubt.
SREENIVASAN: You know, In your recent piece, you wrote, the town is making a comeback, the jobs are returning and incomes are rising, but the reasons
have nothing to do with Mr. Trump and his signature policies. Explain.
DAVIS: Well, that's right. As I say, this is a single industry town, a furniture industry. The furniture industry figured out a way to survive
with China, but at a much, much reduced level. I think the employment of furnitures there is maybe a third of what it used to be. But again, it
still exists. So, the jobs aren't coming back in the furniture industry.
What happened in general was that the people who worked in the furniture factories tended to stay. You know, they didn't have a lot of options
elsewhere in the country, and they have family connections there and all that. And essentially, they got older. A lot of them, a fair percentage of
them went on disability because they did a lot of factory work. It might have wrenched their backs or whatever.
But, you know, they went on Social Security, Medicare, Social Security disability. Federal money comes into the town, and that creates a demand
for services for older people. So, healthcare in particular, but other services as well. So, the area is definitely staging a recovery, no doubt.
[13:45:00]
You know, jobs there are increasing. Unemployment rate is lower. But they aren't jobs in general in manufacturing. They're jobs in services, and many
of those jobs are filled by immigrants or the children of immigrants who lived in Hickory but were too young, you know, in the early 2000s to get a
job.
SREENIVASAN: So, if they're not the same type of jobs, are they paying the same? And if -- I mean, is it physical labor? Is that why there are
different sort of demographics that are signing up?
DAVIS: The service jobs in general tend to pay less than the manufacturing jobs. I mean, some service jobs, of course, don't. If you're a nurse or, I
don't know, a dental assistant, you make considerably more than most factory workers do. But, you know, a home health aide or something are not
highly paid jobs. And the people, again, who tend to gravitate to those jobs are immigrants or the children of immigrants.
Now, if you look at the factory jobs themselves, even they also rely much, much more on immigration. And back, gosh, in 1990 or so, there were hardly
anybody who was foreign-born in that part of the world. And now, it used to be less than 1 percent. Now, it's 10 percent of the population is foreign-
born. That's much lower than the national average, but a substantial, enormous increase from what it used to be.
And the people who go into manufacturing now tend to be the same sort of people. Because, again, if you grew up in Hickory and your father was laid
off and your uncle was laid off and your mother was laid off, the last thing you want to do is to go into manufacturing. Some do, of course, but
it tends to be people who don't have that kind of history.
SREENIVASAN: So, currently, the president talks a lot about how imposing tariffs on China, taking a harder line against China will bring back
American manufacturing. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that they're intended to revitalize the U.S. industry and that factories are
going to be breaking ground. Is that happening in Hickory?
DAVIS: There's a 25 percent tariff on furniture from anywhere, anywhere outside the country, right? So, that's an incentive, certainly an incentive
to move to the U.S. and get under that tariff umbrella. But for the local surviving furniture companies, it hasn't really been a plus at all. I mean,
what they will say to me is that, first of all, their tariff bill has gone up enormously. These are very low-margin kind of businesses. 5 percent
before taxes is considered a good year.
And then the way these furniture companies in general adjusted to China was to move into niche markets that the Chinese can't supply. So, you know, an
expensive piece of furniture with 100 different choices, you know, small production runs. So, this one particular company called Century Furniture
makes $7,000 sofas. They thought, you know, 25 percent tariff is not going to scare away their customers. But what happens is they sell through
furniture retailers a lot, a lot of what they sell. And those retailers rely on sales of $1,000 couches. And for people buying those kind of
couches, 25 percent means a big deal.
So, they're worried that their customers are going to go out of business, and that would hurt them much more than any benefit they might get from,
you know, protection from the -- by the tariffs.
SREENIVASAN: And what about all the parts that go into the sofa? Some of those come from overseas in the first place, right?
DAVIS: Yes, yes. You can get a piece of furniture that's American made, but it's got metal parts and it's got a part from this country and that
country. So, it's also, you know, hundreds of hours trying to figure out, so how much do we owe, you know? And now, there are refunds. They are --
this particular company and others also are applying for refunds.
But first of all, you don't know how much they're going to get. And then, pretty -- you can presume that retailers are going to ask for a refund
also. And then the company says to me, well, you know, it's the customers that really should get the refunds. And are the retailers going to really
call you up and say, you know, I owe you 50 bucks? I doubt it. So, it becomes a complicated equation also.
SREENIVASAN: Given the kind of different variables that you're saying are necessary for, you know, healthy transitions, like let's say, for example,
a research infrastructure, a big university. Right now, we've seen a lot of those universities suffer cutbacks in research funding from the federal
government. You're talking about an immigrant labor pool and population. There's trepidation in certain communities about how ICE is going to come
to their town or what they're going to do and how they're going to disrupt it. And employers are talking about that.
So, I wonder if they're -- you know, the policy prescriptions that we have right now that the administration is putting out will over time, you're
going to see these other kinds of effects on a place like Hickory or even a bigger place where there are where these possibilities for sort of these
green shoots, but some of these policies are kind of stopping.
[13:50:00]
DAVIS: Well, I think the research question is the biggest self-inflicted wound. I mean, it's frankly crazy. You know, I mean, the United States is a
leader in any number of technologies, which can lead to, you know, new industries and the idea of, you know, beating up on these universities
because of issues about diversity and equity and so on, when clearly that's not the research part of those universities is just frankly crazy, you
know, and will really hurt the United States if it continues.
On the immigration question, it was interesting. I happened to be in Hickory, I don't know, a week or so after border patrol was there for one
day. You know, they would stop, you know, at a Mexican restaurant or whatever. And just that one day sent, you know, I'm hesitant to use the
word terror, but that's kind of the way that people felt they were really, really frightened.
And, you know, people who are citizens started carrying passports, you know, people started carrying papers, the local Hispanic aid group, you
know, started making deliveries because people were afraid to come to the food pantries. And that was for one day, one day, you know, and these
factories do depend on a supply of workers. And yes, I think it will, it will wind up hurting places of that sort.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we're having this conversation on the eve of a meeting between president Trump and China's Xi Jinping. And, you know, what
are the things that would help a place like Hickory and are those things going to be on the agenda? So, to speak, is that where America is thinking?
DAVIS: The import impact from China has kind of washed over the United States. I mean, one of the things the United States trade representatives,
Democrat or Republican legitimately complain about is the Chinese model. And so, it's an interesting model.
It is, on the one hand, unbelievably competitive, you know, like in the EV area, hundreds of companies competing and they get really good at it.
They're, you know, quite innovative. Their factories are very, very modern. But what keeps the system going are enormous subsidies, you know, in a
capitalist system, totally capitalist system, you know, you'd have, I don't know, you start with 50 companies, you wind up with three because they're
making cars. And there, what happens is companies stay in business all the time.
So, the result is they produce very good products, but at very, very cheap prices and at money losing prices. And those products that are unprofitable
at home get exported overseas. And even if they may lose a little money overseas, it reduces, you know, the production costs per unit.
And also, they tend to do better, you know, even at prices that, that local competitors might complain about, they might be somewhat profitable for
these companies. So, it has been long been an urging of the United States for China to shift its economic model so that it depends less on, on
exports and more on filling a demand for the, you know, billion 1.4 billion people who live there.
So, it hasn't helped so far. I mean, China has resisted all those complaints and feels that, yes, you know, we're doing pretty well with the
system we have. So, that could be on the agenda, but I think the Trump team is largely given up on that, you know, and is looking for a way to instead
come to some agreement that you only ship certain products at a certain volume and will ship certain products at a certain volume.
Will that help Hickory? I don't honestly know. I mean, maybe a little bit, but it also has all the downsides of protectionism too, which the main one
is you reduce competition and innovation. So, I'm not sure that what will come out of this, you know, this summit will have much effect on the, on
average Americans. I think it's much more on us to develop the programs and policies of our own that will help -- you know, help the United States.
[13:55:00]
SREENIVASAN: Journalist and author Bob Davis, the book that he wrote about this was, "Superpower Showdown." Thanks so much for your time.
DAVIS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: A hugely important relationship there. And finally, the BAFTA television awards took place here in London over the weekend. And one of
the big winners was the harrowing documentary, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack."
But the doc was grabbing headlines for other reasons on its rough road to the BAFTA podium because Britain's biggest broadcaster, the BBC had shelved
it in this highly charged atmosphere since October 7th before it found a second chance at the country's Channel 4 station.
Now, in their acceptance speeches on the BBC, no less, journalist, Ramita Navai and executive producer, Ben De Pear had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAMITA NAVAI, JOURNALIST, "GAZA: DOCTORS UNDER ATTACK": These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for, but refused to show,
but we refuse to be silenced and censored.
BEN DE PEAR, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "GAZA: DOCTORS UNDER ATTACK": Just a question to the BBC. Given that you dropped our film, will you drop us from
the BAFTA screening later tonight? Thank you. Bye.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Well, they clearly didn't drop them. And full disclosure, Ben De Pear is my brother-in-law, the former head of Channel 4 news.
That's it for now. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
