Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns; Interview with U.K. Special Envoy for the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry Peter Ricketts; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 09, 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.
A quarter century later, America and the world remember September 11. Nicholas Burns, U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, joins me with
reflections on that dark day and just how it changed everything.
Then, nearly 1,000 years after it left, the bio-tapestry is back on British soil. I speak to Lord Peter Ricketts, the U.K. Special Envoy who helped
pull off the impossible.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID COHEN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA: I think United States consumers are going to be hurt. I think United States businesses that do
business with Canada are going to be hurt.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- David Cohen, the U.S. ambassador to Canada under Biden, tells Walter Isaacson that Trump's tariffs may push Ottawa into the arms of
Beijing.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
25 years ago this week, America and the world changed forever. The 9/11 attacks shocked people everywhere and prompted an outpouring of global
sympathy for the United States, with NATO, for the first and only time in its history, invoking Article 5 that an attack on one is an attack on all.
Allies rushed to America's side and hundreds of their soldiers gave their lives in the wars in Afghanistan and later Iraq.
Today, America's standing, though, appears very different. Allies now view the U.S. with suspicions, some distrust and workarounds, as it repeatedly
questions -- as the United States repeatedly questions, defending NATO allies and as it engages in a forever war with Iran.
So, how did things get to this place? And is there any way back towards global leadership for the United States? Nicholas Burns has held many
senior positions within the U.S. government, most recently as ambassador to China. On September 11, 2001, he was America's ambassador to NATO, when
Article 5 was first invoked. And he's joining me now. Nicholas Burns, Ambassador, welcome to the program.
NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Thank you, Christine -- Christiane. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: I guess I'm just going to ask you, what do you think now? You're kind of forced to contend with that day 25 years ago. What's flashing
across your view and through your mind?
BURNS: Well, Christiane, I think the fundamental lesson that I learned on 9/11, in terms of America's role in the world, is we need friends and
allies in the world. I was a very new ambassador. I'd only been there 12 days on September 11, 2001. And you'll remember this. We were hit very
hard, nearly 3,000 people dead in the United States, people from 90 countries, by the way.
And my phone -- I couldn't reach the White House State Department, the Pentagon, but my phone started to ring. The Canadian ambassador, David
Wright, the Danish ambassador, the Norwegian ambassador, the Iceland ambassador. And they all said, we're with you. And we'll go into
Afghanistan with you if necessary. And we'll invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. An attack on one is an attack on all.
And by the next day, every ally had agreed. It was a shot in the arm to our country that had been shattered by this catastrophic attack. And in a
conversation with Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security Advisor, she said to me, she said, it's good to have friends in the world. And that was
our conversation on the 12th of September, the next day.
So, Christiane, as I reflect on that day, thank goodness that America had allies that day that would help us, that would step in. And some of them,
of course, in very dangerous missions in Afghanistan with lots of casualties. And I thought about that a lot, especially in the last couple
of months and weeks and days. The United States is powerful, but we need to be respectful of our allies and treat them with respect and work with them
and listen to them because we need them.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: I know, and it's just so incredible to hear your memories. You were right there when Article 5 was invoked. And if you remember, and I'm
going to read this, the French newspaper Le Monde declared, nous sommes tous Americains, we're all Americans at this time.
BURNS: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And you fast forward to today, and nothing could be further from the truth, not because the allies don't want to be, but because this
administration seems to be pushing them back. Did you ever think that this would be a possibility somewhere in the history of transatlantic relations?
BURNS: No, I did not, Christiane. I always assumed that through thick and thin, the United States, every president would realize that the fact that
we have 31 allies in NATO, the fact that we have in East Asia, allies in Japan and South Korea and the Philippines, in Thailand and in Australia,
this is the great difference between the United States and China, the United States and Russia. They have neighbors that fear both countries.
We have had neighbors, all democracies, who believe essentially what we believe about the world. And for President Trump to cut ties with the NATO
allies, to threaten to invade Denmark, Greenland, to threaten that Canada should be the 51st state and to be disrespectful to the people of Canada.
Over the weekend, Christiane, you saw what I saw, a map put out by President Trump on his social media account claiming Iceland as a NATO
ally, as well as Greenland, as well as Mexico as some kind of future territory of the United States. This is madness. It makes no sense for the
United States. And you know, and I know that if you poll the American people, 99.9 percent would say, we want to be respectful of these
countries. We're not trying to acquire them in some kind of 18th century, 19th century imperialist way.
So, I think it's a very sad commentary. And I hope very much that the next president, Republican or Democrat, can reverse this strategy.
AMANPOUR: So, do you think that it can? Is this a blip in the history of, let's say the American presidency and in the history of American relations
with the rest of the world, or as some say, even, you know, Prime Minister Carney, who's the target of a lot of this outpouring from President Trump.
He said in Davos, as you heard at the beginning of the year, this is not a transition, this is a rupture. And talked about how, you know, middle
powers and non-superpowers had to figure out the workaround, including U.S. allies.
BURNS: Well, you know, I've read the Carney speech closely. It was in many ways a brilliant speech, brilliantly delivered. I hope, and I think
probably he hopes that this does not come to pass, that there's some kind of permanent break between the United States and especially its democratic
allies in NATO and in East Asia.
And if you look at the public opinion polls here in the United States, very strong support by the American public for NATO. If you look at the
Republican committee chairs in the Senate, in the House, there's not a single one of them that doesn't believe that NATO remains a great and
enduring alliance for the United States.
So, I do think it's about leadership. Obviously, much changes in foreign policy, some of these changes might be permanent, but I don't believe so on
NATO, on alliances, particularly as Americans focus on the threat from Putin in Europe to impose authoritarianism and to try to defeat Ukraine and
the threat from China.
As you know, Christiane, I was ambassador there for President Biden. These are major challenges. And so, we've got to group together, rally together
to live in peace with these countries, but not to be dominated by them and to stand up for our democratic values.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And you've been ambassador and held senior positions under both administrations from both parties.
BURNS: Right.
AMANPOUR: So, this is about, you know, the institutional American system and its foreign policy and all other policies. You just mentioned Putin.
So, I want to ask you, you see, as we've just been talking about Trump, kind of disrespecting and threatening the idea of the NATO alliance and
whether or not he had come to the aid of other NATO nations if they were attacked. And then suddenly, you see Putin definitely emboldened and Europe
and NATO countries warning that he might try something on in Europe.
But Trump, presumably, it was him who sent his CIA director to Putin or rather to his intelligence officials to tell him, don't misread, don't
misunderstand what's coming from the United States. President Trump is committed to NATO. Don't try anything.
[13:10:00]
So, that's kind of my answer to what do you think the effect Trump's public stance about NATO has had?
BURNS: I think it's weakened deterrence by the NATO allies. I mean, we learned, Christiane, throughout the Cold War, the way to keep the peace,
and we have to have peace in the global power relationship with Russia is to be strong and is to send a message directly to President Putin that have
you ever attempted to invade Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland or Romania, I'm just thinking of five close neighbors to Russia, all NATO
allies, the United States and other countries would react and defend them. That's the way to stop Putin.
And as you know, I was just in Norway over the last four days. They're very concerned by Russians cutting cables in the Baltic Sea and North Sea, by
these drones penetrating the territory of NATO allies. And I think that all the publics, as well as the governments of these allies, are waiting for
President Trump to speak clearly and firmly that we're in the NATO camp, we're with democracies, and we're not with Putin at all.
And frankly, when you send an American negotiating delegation as the president did this week, and where they say in public that it's quite an
honor to meet President Putin, it's one of the unforgettable experiences of their lives, that is exactly the wrong message to send to Vladimir Putin.
So, I hope there's going to be some kind of conversion here in Washington and a rethink that we've got to be much stronger and purposeful on
Ukraine's side of these negotiations, rather than the Russia side, and send the right message on NATO.
AMANPOUR: And do you think, as many have sort of come to the conclusion over the years since 9/11, that perhaps the United States overreacted, that
the Afghan war was a just war, that the U.S. was trying to defeat the enemy that had attacked the homeland, and it was doing so with all its allies.
But then came Iraq, and now fast forward to this apparently new forever war of choice against Iran, which is not going anywhere good for the United
States, as far as we can see right now.
Do you think, when you look back, that policy, this so-called nebulous war on terror and all that it entailed, was an overreaction?
BURNS: Christiane, I'd say this, and obviously I've thought about this a lot. I talked to my class about this this morning here at Harvard Kennedy
School. We had to go into Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001. We'd been hit strategically very hard, and too many people had died in our country. We
had to go after Osama bin Laden. And it's interesting to look back. Russia and China supported the United States going into Afghanistan. The whole
world supported us.
So, I think that was a just intervention by the United States. I think the mistake we made was no one ever felt in 2001 or 2002 in our government that
we'd be there for 20 years. We stayed a long time, kind of lost a sense of the clear mission.
But the big mistake, and I say this in retrospect, 24/7 hindsight was going into Iraq in 2003. I have to tell you, I was ambassador to NATO at that
time. I supported the war. I supported the intervention. I regret that now. I think it was the wrong decision to go in, and certainly the wrong
decision to get caught in the quicksand, if you will, of Iraq and to stay for 11 years and so many people killed.
So, one of the hardest things in global politics, and you know this well from your career as a reporter, when do we intervene and when do we not?
And sometimes the right answer is to intervene. Our mutual friend, Madeleine Albright, told us here at Harvard when she visited some years
ago, the greatest regret she had is we did not intervene in Rwanda when a million people were killed in just a few months' time in 1994.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
BURNS: So, getting this right is, I think, one of the most complex and difficult decisions that leaders make. Clearly, we are right about
Afghanistan. I think in retrospect, I was wrong and our government was wrong to go into Iraq the way we did in 2003.
AMANPOUR: You've also -- you talk about Madeleine Albright, and of course I do remember that and the horror of the omission, you know, of not
intervening and it caused nearly a million deaths, as you say, in such a quick time. But then you also have talked about the lack of diplomacy and
diplomats and a real sort of degrading of the idea of diplomacy.
And so, now, 25 years later, we're in the first couple of years of the Trump second administration and it appears that a lot of the professionals
are sidelined, either out of the picture or do not have sway.
[13:15:00]
And I wonder what you think -- what effect that's happening now? You mentioned briefly the, you know, personal friends and colleagues and
families who Trump tasks with some very important diplomacy. But over Iran, I mean, did nobody tell the president, for instance, what might happen with
a war of choice against Iran that could lead? And what's the danger of careening into these wars with no fixed exit plan or strategy?
BURNS: Christiane, I think one of the greatest mistakes President Trump has made is that he has really neglected, in fact, even cast aside our
career diplomats in the United States Foreign Service. You know many of these people very well.
There was no career diplomat in the room with Mr. Witkoff and Jared Kushner when they had that final conversation with the Iranian foreign minister
before the war began on February 28th. We have plenty of people in our system who speak Farsi, speak Persian, who understand the country, who've
dealt with the Iranians. They've been sidelined. No career diplomats in the room when they go in to meet Witkoff and Kushner, President Putin in
Moscow.
This is diplomatic malpractice. Basically to just cast away your foreign service officers. Many of them fired. Many of our best people just pushed
aside and told to retire and to rely on, frankly, people who don't have the experience. They don't speak the language. They don't understand the great
power aspects of this. It's an own goal for the United States.
And I have to hope that the next president and next secretary of state of either party after 2028 are going to right the ship and bring back our
career diplomats and our career senior military officers, so many of whom have been fired. This is not smart. It's not the way to go forward for a
great country like ours.
AMANPOUR: And some people would say, certainly critics of this administration, would say that Osama bin Laden's main objective in 2011,
and as he kept over the years trying to attack the United States, was to attack America's position in the world, its leadership position, to upend
that post-war structure. And now, 20 years later, people are saying, well, actually, it's the current administration that is kind of giving away
America's superpower in the ways that you've just described and giving it perhaps to China.
And you have been ambassador to China, as you mentioned in the early part of the interview. And I just wondered whether you think this is a moment
where the relative strength of the superpower and the wannabe superpower are at a sort of a tipping point.
BURNS: Well, I've thought about this a lot, as you can imagine, and I'm worried. I'm worried that the United States is giving the impression that
we -- well, we've broken the bonds of trust with our allies, that in the tariff regime, we've placed tariffs on nearly every country in the world,
some of our best allies and partners in the world. We're out of the global climate change conference. We're going in a very unilateral direction. It
allows Xi Jinping to stand up and say, I'm the stable leader. I believe in the rule of law. This is all cynical, by the way, on the part of the
Chinese, but this is what they say. And we're not going to start trade wars with other countries, et cetera.
And so, I do think we're giving not just a pass to the Chinese, we're giving them a pedestal to stand on, that they're the country concerned
about the global order and look at that renegade country to the United States. We've got to change course here. And if we don't, I do think you'll
see China vault ahead of the United States in many ways. The latest PEW, P- E-W, Global Public Opinion Poll, shows for the first time that publics in allied countries, like Australia, France, Germany, Italy, now have greater
faith in China to be a global leader than the United States. How sad is that?
So, I do think this battle of ideas for the hearts and minds of people around the world trending in China's favor, it pains me to say that. And we
Americans, I think, are better than that and need a government that can be more respectful and open to the democratic countries and everyone else
around the world.
AMANPOUR: And just finally, as a U.S. ambassador to China, what would you advise the current president if you were in the room when he met President
Xi of China, which is going to happen at the summit in Washington on 24th of September?
BURNS: My advice would be we've got to stand by Taiwan. The president should go ahead with the arms sale package that he has been delaying since
January of this year.
[13:20:00]
That we should speak up for Japan, our ally. China's trying to intimidate Japan. The Philippines, China's trying to intimidate the Philippines in the
South China Sea. Speak up for our allies. Tell the Chinese that we're going to support them. At the same time, you know, obviously complain to the
Chinese about their unfair trading practices.
I think, you know, you need to show some strength in the relationship with China, and of course we want to live peacefully with China. We want to go
back to working, we should, on climate change with China. But I think the president has been too soft on both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. And this
is hurting the United States and our allies are watching, and I think they're very worried about the direction we're heading in.
AMANPOUR: Ambassador Nicholas Burns, thank you for this perspective 25 years after 9/11. Thank you. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after
the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next to an act of international diplomacy nearly 1,000 years in the making. This week, the Bayeux Tapestry will go on public display here
in Britain for the very first time in centuries, after the French President Emmanuel Macron agreed to a historic loan.
It is a remarkable moment, and a popular one. Tickets to view the tapestry at the British Museum sold out almost immediately they went on sale. The
artwork itself is astonishing, depicting the 1066 Norman conquest of Britain in vivid, colorful detail.
Amongst those tasked with making this moment a reality was Lord Peter Ricketts, who served as U.K. national security adviser, as ambassador to
France, and he is now the U.K. government's special envoy for the historic loan of the Bayeux Tapestry, and he's joining me now. Lord Ricketts,
welcome to the program.
I was lucky enough to see it. I ran into you there at the British Museum earlier this week, and I didn't get to ask you enough about the difficulty
of the negotiation. Can you walk us through how long it took, what were the pitfalls, what were the obstacles, if any, how you did it?
PETER RICKETTS, U.K. SPECIAL ENVOY FOR THE LOAN OF THE BAYEUX TAPESTRY: Christiane, thank you for having me. It is a most wonderful opportunity to
see this 950-year-old embroidery, actually not tapestry.
The initiative came from French President Emmanuel Macron, who said at a summit meeting with Theresa May, the prime minister here, 2018, that his
objective was that we should have the tapestry on loan. I think the particular reason for that was that the Bayeux Museum was closing, where
it's been on display for many, many years for a refurbishment, rebuild, and otherwise it was going to go into storage. And I think Macron understood
that this artwork, this object, tells the foundational story of England, in a way.
1066 is the date which every schoolchild here knows. It has a special magic, it has a real impact, and he understood that. And so, 2018 was the
start of the story, then there was COVID, then we went through a rather bad patch of relations with France over Brexit and all the difficulties of
that.
[13:25:00]
And so, it was only about 2024 or something that momentum picked up again and plans really began to be made. And the problems, of course, are
practical problems. When the decision of principle is taken, then it's a question of getting this object to the U.K. and displaying it safely. It is
fragile, it's very large, it's 70 meters long, it needs careful climate control, and in particular, the minimum possible vibration so that the
threads aren't detached.
And so, we had to solve problems of transport and of then designing an exhibition in London, which met very tight parameters to ensure this
extraordinary survival from the 11th century is safe and sound here and goes back safe and sound to France at the end of the show.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And we're looking at beautiful, beautiful images of the various points in the transfer. And it has been beautifully displayed at
the British Museum, complete with an animated explanation that's on the wall as we look down at the tapestry, which, as you say, is embroidery.
Let me ask you about just sum up why this 1066, the Norman invasion and conquest, completely changed British history. What was it before and what's
it been since?
RICKETTS: Well, before the Anglo-Saxons ruled in England and in other parts of the U.K., other rulers, when the Normans came, they brought their
language, they brought their king, they brought their governance, they brought their architecture. So, many of the great monuments of the
cathedrals and the castles around England were built by the Normans in the century after the conquest. They no doubt changed our food and much else as
well.
And so, that is really the point at which, for most people, history began. Before that, there's not much in the way of records of the Anglo-Saxon
period. And some of the reason for that is that although most people haven't seen the Bayeux Tapestry in England, the images from it are very
well known. They're in every child's school book. So, I think that's why it has this special power.
And this is the most extraordinary object. It's a kind of comic strip straight out of the 11th century. It talks directly to children. It's
vivid. It's full of color and movement and detail. It really is a window onto another world. And therefore, it has a special magic, also extremely
well adapted for social media.
So, as you've seen, it's flooding social media with memes of every possible description. And therefore, it's going to be a sensational show, a real
blockbuster.
AMANPOUR: Yes, indeed. And actually, just watching it and seeing the colors and the clarity, obviously, and the state of health that actually
the tapestry is in, you just can't believe that it's, you know, as you said, 950 years old. How did it stay so pristine and so almost -- you know,
it doesn't look like it's had a single, you know, tear in it. But I know there have been some repairs and some restorations.
RICKETTS: Yes, it's a fairly lived in object by now. I mean, the answer, I think, is that for most of the time, it was in a box in Bayeux Cathedral.
And it was taken out once a year and put on display for a saint's day and then put away again. So, for many centuries, it didn't really see the light
of day, which has been crucial because as an embroidery, it would have easily faded. Then from the 19th century, it's been on display and probably
hasn't been all that well looked after. But it is a pretty resilient thing.
And so, it's still got, as you say, the fine detail. One of the great stars of this show for me is the showcase, because we designed a very high-tech
showcase. So, it's safe, it's protected, it's climate controlled, but you can get up really close to it. And because it's lying flat, you can lean
over it and see the very fine detail in all the fabric, all the color and everything that they put in. The daily life, as well as the scenes of
battle, the scenes of diplomacy. It really is all life is there. And that's why I think it's going to really absorb people's attention. It pays to have
done some homework before you went.
I'm sure you did, Christiane, like I did, to understand a bit of what's going on there. There are graphics in the museum which help with that as
well. But no, it's an object that speaks very directly to people.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And it's really moving. As you say, it's a comic strip. When I first saw it, it was in Bayeux. And the director who showed me
around said it was the first animated history, like a comic strip, as you say. And it's true. And it's really, I guess, accessible and compelling for
all ages. And the beauty is just a thing of true magnificence.
The question is, who did it? Was it one -- we understand it was women. Was it one woman? Was it a team of women? How long did it take? Who ordered it?
Whose perspective is it made from?
RICKETTS: I mean, all good questions. And the scholars, I think, have discussed that over many years. Who it was made for is relatively easy.
[13:30:00]
There's one man who comes out as always being in the right place, always on the right side, right alongside William the Conqueror. And that's a guy
called Bishop Odo, who I think was a brother-in-law, who came across in the conquest. Then he was made Bishop of Bayeux Cathedral.
So, no surprise, this object was probably made in some sort of tribute to Bishop Odo and went to his cathedral and was stored there. And the scholars
think that it was probably done by women in Canterbury, in the years quite soon after 1066. Why? Because there are images on the tapestry, which
coincide very much with manuscripts that are still in the library of St. Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury. So, that's what it looks like.
And it was sort of noble women of that period who were embroiderers. There must have been a lot of them, because there's four million threads or
something in the tapestry. It would have taken several years, but seems to have been done by the end of the 1060s. So, quite soon after the events,
the people who were embroidering it would have lived through the events that are depicted on the tapestry.
AMANPOUR: Yes, which makes it even more special. I'm going to bring up one image that we have into Alia (ph). We have so many, but just I want to ask
you about something that's come up as a real talking point, and that is King Harold. Legend has it that he was killed with an arrow through the
eye. That's what we learned at school when we learned 1066. And now, there is a lot of doubt about that.
So, there is this image that we're seeing, and it looks like there is the king pulling an arrow out of his eye. And then there's an image that also
looks like the king, but he's being hacked by a Norman soldier on that horse with his sword. So, which is it, do you think, and why the
controversy over that?
RICKETTS: We're all setting ourselves up as historians of the 11th century here, aren't we? And what the experts think is that that arrow was probably
added a lot later. It probably wasn't on the tapestry. And in the chronicles, I don't think anybody speaks about Harold being killed with an
arrow in his eye. So, I think the best opinion I've heard is that probably it's the man being hacked down one scene further on, and the myth has grown
up around the figure who's supposed to have an arrow in his eye.
But as you can see when you look at the images, this is not a rose-tinted historical portrait. The graphic details of war and suffering and violence
are there as well as the homely scenes of cooking and eating in the houses. So, it's very, very graphic. But apparently, he didn't have the arrow in
the eye, as far as people can tell. However, it's still a good story.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let me bring -- it's a good story. Let me bring up another specific picture that we have to your point, that there was a lot
of the horror of war, obviously, and it's been brilliantly depicted as well in full color and full detail.
So, there's one where there's a woman who's fleeing with her child, and her house is being burnt down, or was about to be burnt down by the Norman
soldiers, as we can see here. She's one of only about six women depicted in this entire 70-meter tapestry. And some believe that this is really one of
the most moving, one of the most poignant. Some have said that they feel that the look, even on the Norman soldier's face, has been depicted as one
of sorrow or regret. They don't look avaricious or rapacious about it, although there are scenes of rape elsewhere.
The project curator says, this woman's experience is the experience of the every woman, if you will. The experience that a lot of English women,
including the English women who probably made the tapestry, would have lived through and would have experienced. What did you make of that scene?
RICKETTS: It's a very harrowing scene, indeed. And it reminds that this was war. This was brutal war in which civilians were caught up. Obviously,
women and children were killed, were raped. Houses were burnt. Villages were burned. I mean, we know that the Normans went through England pretty
brutally in the years after the conquest. To subdue the Anglo-Saxons, it was a very, very tough period. And the tapestry doesn't shy away from that.
So, yes, it's one of the most poignant and difficult pictures to see, actually. Because, you know, this is, you know, violence against women and
children in the course of a brutal war. And that is on the face of the tapestry. As you say, I think there are three noble women on the whole
tapestry. Otherwise, it is men. But the women were suffering as well, and the children. And it doesn't forget that.
AMANPOUR: Let me fast forward to today, because I explained that you've been the national security adviser. You've been U.K. ambassador to France.
And you've been a pretty strong voice commenting about Russia's war on Ukraine.
[13:35:00]
Recently, one of the senior Pentagon officials, Elbridge Colby, has said that Europe, quote, "must not slack in their military backing for Ukraine."
How did you take those comments?
RICKETTS: It was wonderful to listen to my good friend Nick Burns speaking to you just before, Christiane. I agreed very much with what he said. We
don't need any encouragement from anyone in Washington to understand that we have got to spend more in Europe because of the threat from Putin,
because of the urgent need to support Ukraine. And it is happening. It's been happening for the last decade, thanks largely to Putin, but also with
a lot of pushing from first Trump, first regime, and now second presidency.
So, U.K. European defense spending is rising. Not enough, in my view. Not fast enough and not far enough. But absolutely, I mean, succession of
British prime ministers, and my goodness, we've had a lot of British prime ministers, six in the last seven or eight years. They've all been
absolutely staunch in support for Ukraine, and Andy Burnham, the new prime minister, is carrying on with that. But we do need to rebuild our arms
industry, to rebuild our armed forces, and for that we need time.
So, I mean, we're all hoping over here that this forced posture review going on in the Pentagon about the scale of American forces in Europe will
not move so fast that it catches us short before we can rebuild some of the capacity, we need in order to be able to take more of a strain here. But I
think there's a political consensus here that we do need to take more of the strain.
AMANPOUR: And I just want to take you back to the tapestry. There was this image of Halley's Comet, apparently the first ever recorded image of
Haley's Comet. It was quite incredible to see. I had never clocked that before.
RICKETTS: Yes, and it did indeed pass over England in 1066. So, you know, this was another lived experience. And right next to it is Harold, this by
then king, and he's got a very, you know, sad, worried look on his face as his courtier is telling that Halley's Comet has been seen in the sky
because comets were not good news for kings in the 11th century. And it portends disaster. And underneath that image are the sort of phantom ships.
So, it's almost like a nightmare of an invading fleet coming over, which then happens later. So, yes, Halley's Comet is on there and it was bad news
for King Harold.
AMANPOUR: Lord Peter Ricketts, thank you so much. And everybody hopes that the British Museum will give out more tickets and accommodate the hordes
that are really clamoring to get in to see that amazing depiction of a thousand years of history that changed this entire country and the way it
is governed and the way it lives, its daily life and its communal and governance. And it's an amazing thing to see. So, thank you for being with
us.
Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, as we mentioned earlier in the program, the escalating trade war between the United States and Canada is heating up. The Trump
administration has threatened to prevent the U.S. government from buying certain Canadian-made products. That's in response to Ottawa yesterday
carrying out its threat to slap retaliatory tariffs on $20 billion worth of American goods.
[13:40:00]
It's the latest rupture, upending one of the world's closest trade relations. And as former U.S. ambassador to Canada David Cohen tells Walter
Isaacson, it could indeed push Ottawa closer to Beijing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, David Cohen. Welcome to the show.
DAVID COHEN, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO CANADA: Thank you for having me, Walter. It's great to see you again.
ISAACSON: This week, Canada retaliated with large tariffs based on the trade war back and forth with the United States. This keeps going back and
forth, but this looks like a really bad round. Now, Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent said, I don't think you can be in a tit for tat with an
economy that's 13 times bigger than you. In other words, Canada just can't win this. As a former ambassador from the U.S. to Canada, what do you think
of that?
COHEN: Well, I try and approach these questions with as much objectivity as I can. I also really don't like criticizing my president, whether I
agree with them or not. So, I have to try and tread a delicate line, but I try and be very fair in what I say.
And I think on that point, Secretary Bessent is basically right. Let's understand what these retaliatory tariffs are. They are tariffs of 15, 25
and 50 percent on a number of important Canadian products that are exported to the United States, including steel, just by way of example. But the
total amount of trade impacted by these tariffs is about $20 billion U.S. And there's a -- the total Canadian exports to the United States in any
year is about $400 billion.
So, although the tariffs have a high sticker price, they only apply to a relatively small percentage, about 5 percent of Canada's exports to the
United States.
ISAACSON: So, who in the United States is going to get hurt by this?
COHEN: I think United States consumers are going to be hurt. I think United States businesses that do business with Canada are going to be hurt,
particularly small and medium sized businesses who are really going to be - - because all these tariffs not paid by Canada. I mean, the U.S. tariffs aren't paid by Canada and the Canadian tariffs aren't paid by the United
States. That's a myth that frankly President Trump has helped to perpetuate by saying it's the foreign countries who pay the tariffs. That is not true.
It is the companies in the two countries, it is the consumers in the two countries who pay the tariffs.
So, you're going to see a pretty quick impact, for example, on small automobile parts manufacturers in the United States, in Detroit, by way of
example, but in other border cities where these tariffs are going to be imposed on them. They're going to have to pay them. They're not going to be
able to pass them on.
Imagine a small business in Detroit that is providing automobile parts manufactured in Canada to Ford or to General Motors that can be able to
pass those tariffs on to them. They're going to have to absorb them. And if it causes them to go out of business or lay off employees, American
employees who work in those small businesses, that's where the impact is going to be felt.
ISAACSON: Well, the latest thing from President Trump is to try to stop Bombardier from selling planes in the United States. That's a great
Canadian jet manufacturer. And suddenly there's a backlash in Kansas among Republicans because Bombardier makes a whole lot in Kansas.
COHEN: Right. So, this is the reason why even traditional tariff policy and I'm not in love with tariffs. You know me a long time. I view tariffs
as sort of a governmental interference in the way the market works. I'm never a fan of those. But particularly between the United States and Canada
with integrated supply chains, the tariffs just don't work the way they would work as if you're imposing tariffs on China, which is the model that
President Trump's tariff policy seems to follow.
Bombardier is a great example because 55 percent of Bombardier's manufacturing is, in fact, either done in the United States or uses United
States parts. Bombardier's U.S. headquarters is in Wichita, Kansas. There are a thousand American employees in Wichita working for Bombardier, which
is why Senator Moran reacted so vociferously to the application of the tariffs because it's going to adversely impact his constituents in Kansas.
[13:45:00]
ISAACSON: Is there any merit to President Trump's desire to rebalance trade with Canada? And do the Canadians need to try to understand what he's
trying to do?
COHEN: So, I think the answer is that there is some merit to some of President Trump's tariff policies. I'm not sure balancing trade is the
right issue. And by the way, that's not just with Canada. There are 100 countries that have an imbalance of trade with the United States and
President Trump's imposing tariffs on all of those countries.
So, I think that balance of trade issue is not a legitimate issue to impose tariffs on myself. I mean, that's just -- I think that's the wrong
justification because I think it misstates balance of trade as a both as the cause of it as well as the result of it. There is an imbalance of trade
between the United States and Canada. But the United States is getting a lot of goods for that money they're paying. And here's the real headline,
the goods they're getting that's driving the imbalance of trade is energy, it's oil and gas.
If you back out the oil and gas that the United States buys from Canada, it is Canada that has a slight balance of trade problem with the United
States, or balance of trade between United States and Canada is almost equal, slightly favoring the United States over Canada without energy. It
is the energy imports of the United States from Canada that is driving the imbalance of trade numbers.
And so, if you posit that by pinning tariffs on imbalance of trade, President Trump is trying to balance the trade. If he were successful, he
would be cutting down on energy imports from Canada and that would dramatically affect in an adverse way states like Michigan. We're going to
talk about states where their midterm elections are important. Michigan, Ohio, Kansas, and even in the Northeast because of the imbalance of trade
for electrical energy with a significant amount of electrical energy moving from Canada to the United States in Massachusetts, New York, Northeastern
states.
And I don't think that President Trump or anyone in his administration is advocating for the United States to buy less energy from Canada because
it's cheap, it's convenient, it's a friendly country or it has been a friendly country until this trade war.
ISAACSON: If this trade war continues, let's look at some of the things that Canada could do more in retaliation, could they cut back or cut down
on energy supplies to America and what effect would that have?
COHEN: So, two things. There have been some in Canada who have advocated for putting Canada's energy exports to the United States in play. One of
those people is a fairly important person. Premier Ford, who is the premier of Ontario, which is the largest trading province of Canada with the United
States. The prime minister to date has said that he does not want to put energy in play.
And there are other premiers, primarily Premier Smith from Alberta, where most of that oil and gas comes from, who have vehemently pushed back on
putting energy in play and using energy as a as a card in this tariff war. An enormous amount of oil and gas consumed in eastern Canada actually runs
through pipelines that run through the United States. And that if Canada retaliated by putting energy in play, the United States could retaliate by
shutting down Canadian access to those pipelines, which would mean that the first provinces hurt by an energy war would be Ontario and Quebec, two of
the larger Canadian provinces.
So, that's one of the reasons probably why Prime Minister Carney has been against injecting energy into the tariff war.
[13:50:00]
The other thing that's been talked about, Canada has a wealth of critical minerals. It is something the United States covets. And again, there has
been conversation that maybe Canada should begin to limit the United States access to critical minerals. Again, Prime Minister Carney has said that he
does not want to use critical minerals in a tariff war. He thinks one of Canada's great calling cards is the reliability of supply. You don't have
to worry about Canada when you make a deal to buy critical minerals or make a deal to buy energy. Canada will honor that deal.
So, as of now, Prime Minister Carney has sort of rejected the two big calling cards that Canada has energy and critical minerals as retaliatory
tools.
ISAACSON: Could Canada end up making a trade deal with China?
COHEN: Well, I think you see a lot of footsie being played. And if you will, it's not just Canada. I think the irony of Trump administration trade
policy, this is not a I'm not making a judgment here. I think I'm just stating facts. The irony of United States trade policy is it is pushing
many traditional trading partners, including Canada, but many others, the E.U., the U.K., Japan. It is pushing all those countries to make deals with
China.
And of course, the signature element of United States trade policy remains to try to wall off China and not to make trade deals with China. And the
proof point of this is that a few months ago, Canada made a small deal with China relating to canola because Canada is a huge exporter of canola and
China is a big importer of canola. And that small deal drew a very negative reaction from the Trump administration of don't get into bed with China.
You'll give us no choice but to retaliate against you for doing business with China.
ISAACSON: If Canada does make some defense arrangements with China and if this trade dispute with the United States continues, how could that affect
NORAD, the North American defense we have with Canada?
COHEN: Yes. So, of course, they're completely contrary -- counter to each other. NORAD is a very important by national defense arrangement. By the
way, it is a joint defense command under the joint command of Canada and the United States. It is the only by national defense command in the world,
which tells you how close historically the U.S. Canada relationship was.
NORAD is all about continental defense. It's about defense of North America. And Canada is an essential partner in that defense. I'll remind
you -- I don't have to remind you, you'll remember, but remind your listeners a couple of summers ago about those balloons floating over
Canada, floating over the Arctic. They turned out to be Chinese spy balloons. And ultimately, they were shot down by NORAD aircraft.
Now, the interesting thing is the NORAD aircraft that shot them down were United States fighter jets because the Canadian Air Force did not have the
range and type of aircraft on assignment to NORAD or elsewhere that were capable of shooting those balloons down, which goes to the underinvestment
of defense by Canada, which is one of President Trump's legitimate gripes, again, with respect to Canada, as well as other NATO allies that we've seen
play out in a substantial increase of commitments to NATO by Canada and other member nations.
I don't -- I think the prime minister has played his hand exceedingly, Prime Minister Carney has played his hand exceedingly well. I mean, he
doesn't have a lot of cards because of this difference in scale. But I think he's tried to negotiate as a sovereign nation. He's pushed back in a
respectful way when he needs to push back. He has not engaged in name calling. He has tried not to personally engage with President Trump. He's
engaged professionally and tried to negotiate.
So, I have a high level of confidence that any defense-oriented conversations and deals that Canada would make with China would protect
continental defense issues to the maximum extent possible.
[13:55:00]
ISAACSON: David Cohen, thank you so much for joining us.
COHEN: Walter, thanks for having me on.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, here comes the bride and even a Russian strike can't stop her. It was the night before her wedding when a blast wave tore
through the Kyiv apartment of 33-year-old Liudmyla Ryzhak and her soldier partner. But instead of postponing the nuptials, the couple dug through the
rubble, cleared and dusted debris off their bridal special clothes and headed out to be hitched. The newlyweds told the Associated Press, who can
guarantee this won't happen again tomorrow? At least for now, I have the right to be happy. Both him and me.
And isn't that a fact? Hope and life has to continue. 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. Thank you for watching, and goodbye
from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
