Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen; Interview with Former Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd; Interview with Prosper Global CEO Tjada D'Oyen McKenna. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 24, 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]
REBECCA COOKE (D), WISCONSIN CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: -- rates, making sure that we're looking at environmental protections and having a federal
data center moratorium offers that we need more trust in our local and federal elected officials, transparency in the process and time to really
understand the impact that data centers are going to have on our communities.
Derrick Van Orden, meanwhile, voted, like you said, for an $80 billion tax break for these companies that taken the maximum contribution from Elon
Musk, SpaceX. He's the opposite. He's being bought and paid for by Big Tech.
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Rebecca Cooke, we are out of time in this program. Thank you so much for being here. We have asked Congressman Derrick Van
Orden to join us, too. He's welcome anytime.
Thanks for joining Inside Politics on this very newsworthy day. CNC starts right now.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
Plenty of pomp and even more challenges. President Trump welcomes President Xi to the White House for the first time in a decade. A.I., trade, war, all
on the table. For the European perspective, I'll be speaking to the E.U. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. We'll also discuss the E.U.'s
internal threats and new alliances.
Then the former Australian prime minister and China expert, Kevin Rudd, joins me with his unique insight into President Xi, one of the world's most
enigmatic leaders.
And Yemen, Gaza, Sudan, Syria, all torn apart by conflict. A firsthand account of how they're trying to rebuild with humanitarian Tjada McKenna.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour at the United Nations.
Friends or foes or neither? That's the big question as President Trump hosts Chinese leader President Xi Jinping at a major summit today. Now,
normally, we'd be showing you pictures of this important event, but until CNN's access to the media pool covering the White House is fully restored,
we are not doing so.
Nonetheless, it is, as we said, a pivotal meeting between these leaders, leaders of the two most powerful nations about everything from A.I. to
trade to world wars. And of course, Europe will be watching very closely indeed. The E.U. itself has much to grapple with from its relationship with
China to a resurgent far-right to the threat from Russia to managing that all important relationship with the United States.
As the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, laid out for me today in an exclusive interview.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: President Ursula von der Leyen, welcome back to our program.
URSULA VON DER LEYEN, EUROPEAN COMMISSION PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for having me.
AMANPOUR: It is a very interesting time with a lot of people at U.N. bashing, a lot of people multilateral bashing, particularly the President
of the United States. What do you think the U.N. and other institutions like the E.U., NATO, you know, multilateral organizations can still do to
uphold the world order?
VON DER LEYEN: I think we need multilateralism. And what we're doing is, for example, we see many, many countries wanting to have free trade
agreements with the European Union, because we are predictable. And we're stable. For example, this year, I closed free trade agreements with India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Mercosur, Australia, and last week with the Philippines. And I think this speaks for itself that they want at eyes level, playing by
the rules that are acknowledged by everybody. This is very important.
AMANPOUR: Tell us about Canada, because last week coming into this summit here, the Canadian Prime Minister came to the parliament in Strasbourg, you
were there, you sort of mouthed or indicated that maybe he could be the first associate member. What do you mean and what is the reality of how
close Canada can get to the E.U.?
VON DER LEYEN: I think we have to reimagine partnership. And with Canada, we do have a free trade agreement, CETA. It is working very well since it's
in place. It has an increase of trade from the European Union to Canada of 75 percent. But we can do much, much more.
Cannot be a member of the European Union because of geography is the only reason. So, in whatever sector we want to work as close as possible
together, and have an associate membership of Canada, be it artificial intelligence, or be it health, be it quantum or biotechnology, but also the
traditional industrial sectors, as much as possible, as close as possible.
AMANPOUR: Can I just ask you, is there such a thing formally as associate member? Because that's been the debate. What did she mean? What does it
mean?
[13:05:00]
VON DER LEYEN: We're starting with that now with Canada, because Canada wanted to be as close as possible, thinking about potential membership.
This is not possible because of our treaty says only European countries. But we want to be as close as possible. And it's not only values based,
it's also interest based.
AMANPOUR: You mentioned a few issues which are super challenging. Let's just take A.I. The fact is, perhaps the most important summit this week is
not happening here, but in Washington right now between Presidents Trump and Xi. About everything, the world order, but also A.I. Where do you as
the E.U. stand on the idea of slowing it down, pacing it, as seems to be the technical term, to try to make sure humans remain a vital part of this
endeavor?
VON DER LEYEN: We have in the European Union already guardrails, regulation for artificial intelligence. The challenge is that the
technology is evolving so fast. So, I think the frontier labs have to take their responsibility. They have to show more transparency about what's
going on. Also, incidents that are not wanted.
We have to invest more in A.I. safety and we have to have a robust verification mechanism. But we should not forget there's also the
opportunities of A.I.
AMANPOUR: Do you think that it's important to have an agreement or whatever they want to call it between President Xi and Trump, i.e., China
and the USA, which are the leaders on A.I.? And I know that a lot in the industry and a lot of others are saying, oh my gosh, how are we going to
make sure that this remains a positive thing and not an independent human replacement and dangerous? Do you think it's necessary for those two big
powers to set the tone?
VON DER LEYEN: We will see what the result will be. It's good that they speak about the topic. For us it's crucial that we are human-centric. It's
the human being that decides. Take A.I. and health for mammography, for example. A.I. can be very helpful, for example, to detect earlier cancer,
which is saving lives.
But I do not want to have a robot telling me whether I have cancer or not. I want my doctor to have access to the best data of the world because of
A.I. So, the human factor in it is so important.
AMANPOUR: Let's just move on to just another issue about Canada -- sorry, China, which is very pertinent to the E.U., and that's trade.
VON DER LEYEN: Yes.
AMANPOUR: How are you going to manage this whole issue? Because I think you believe that there's way too much unregulated Chinese trade with the
E.U.
VON DER LEYEN: Yes. The mood is changing in the European Union because of the imbalance that we have in our trade relationship. We have a trade
deficit of 1 billion euros per day.
AMANPOUR: Per day?
VON DER LEYEN: Per day. And this cannot go on. We cannot have the deindustrialization of our industrial heartland because China is dumping
its overcapacity on the European market. So, we have now established with China a high-level dialogue on that topic, but the dialogue has to deliver.
In parallel, we have instruments that ensure the economic security of the European Union. We want the dialogue to be successful, but if necessary, we
have the instruments on the table, or we can develop new ones.
AMANPOUR: What is an instrument in this case? What is the instrument?
VON DER LEYEN: For example, limit the access of Chinese products that are heavily subsidized to our market. We like competition, but we want a level
playing field. We want it under the same conditions. And the heavy subsidizing of products that then come to the market and destroy the
industry on the European Union side is not acceptable anymore.
AMANPOUR: To be fair, you said that when you were having the trade agreement with President Trump, maybe last year, I can't remember the exact
date. And your critics say that you had this instrument, the bazooka as they call it, which you never pulled the trigger. Do you think that was a
mistake? Do you think you're back to balanced trade with the United States?
VON DER LEYEN: On the contrary, it was the right thing to do, because today everybody acknowledges that the trade deal has brought relative
stability. This is a value in itself. We have the best trade agreement worldwide, 10 percent. We have relative stability that is extremely
important. This protected jobs on both sides, millions of jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. So, for the economy to have predictability and
stability is a high value.
AMANPOUR: The foreign policy leader in Europe, Kaja Kallas, former prime minister of Estonia, just said that the deal on Greenland, which really
threw a wrench into European and alliance cohesion, could have happened without all these threats, without the threat of Trump taking it over or
invading or whatever. He's got a security deal that everybody was willing to, you know, let happen in the beginning.
Do you think he just -- what do you think about that? Did he waste a lot of goodwill with all these threats?
VON DER LEYEN: It is very good. The Greenland result is a very good one. So, we really support that. Let's take the topic of security and defense.
[13:10:00]
I think it was necessary for the European Union to develop more independence, to invest heavily in our own defense posture, is my opinion.
We have really changed things in the last years. We have now round about 800 billion euros till 2030 to invest in defense and step up the defense
posture. That is a European one, a typical example where it was necessary to have more independence.
AMANPOUR: OK. You didn't directly answer my question, but I'm going to ask you this, because I spoke to the Estonian foreign minister. A lot of
Estonians, I'm quoting, because they, of course, are on the front line. He actually told me yesterday that Europe had been a lazy, fat old cat, not
investing in its own defense. I see you smiling. Do you agree with him? And he credited President Trump for lighting a fire under you all and getting
you to spend more.
VON DER LEYEN: So, I think what I just said is it was time for us to step up and get our act together in defense. For example, if we take the
frontline member states that are under pressure from Russia right now, we see an increase of hybrid threats that are less and less hybrid and less
and less threats. For example, the Leipzig event, where we had military gadget material, where we had Russian operatives on European soil.
So, we really have to step up and decide together how we are dealing with this. This is the reason why I'm working on an emergency security protocol,
which is aligned with Article 4 in NATO, so that any member state can trigger this mechanism and we can formulate a common, coherent response to
this kind of new threats that are emerging.
AMANPOUR: Does it worry you a little bit? Because all the NATO leaders -- I'm not sure that you ever said it, but all the NATO leaders used to say,
not one inch, i.e., if Putin puts any foot or toe on NATO soil, then the whole Article 5 will start being triggered.
VON DER LEYEN: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: You're telling me that Russian operatives were in Germany waging a war, a drone war, against a German target in Leipzig. How come NATO
didn't react?
VON DER LEYEN: And therefore, we need the emergency security protocol of the European Union --
AMANPOUR: Which is?
VON DER LEYEN: -- so that the European Union member states together decide on how are we dealing with this, how do we attribute this and what is our
coherent response and --
AMANPOUR: But NATO has a response. How can you have two different responses?
VON DER LEYEN: Well, I am responsible for the European Union and I think the European Union has to step up in this point. This is something that we
have to be more responsible for our own security and be ready. This is the reason why we invest so much in defense, and rightly so. We have to be able
to defend ourselves.
AMANPOUR: So, Trump did a good thing?
VON DER LEYEN: I think it was since many years necessary that we hear the wake-up call and you see the reaction now of the European Union massively
stepping up.
AMANPOUR: And who gave you the wake-up call?
VON DER LEYEN: Look, I remember it was already President Obama who rightly so said, you have to step up your own defense. And the development of the
theatres we are in, for example Russia's war against Ukraine, was for us the necessary wake-up call that it's not only about Ukraine and this war
but it's also about our own security.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, now, that brings me to a changing landscape in Europe. You have got more and more far-right parties either in government or
ascending into government. You see what the AfD has achieved in Germany. Now, you see that the most popular party in France whose election will be
this coming May is the National Front or whatever they call themselves these days, but Marine Le Pen, who has a, at least verbally, expresses a
certain hostility to the E.U.
And today there has been a debate between Marine Le Pen, the far-left Melenchon and the centrist party candidate, Attal for president. This is
what she has said. No more funding for Ukraine. We cannot do it. She said we can train their soldiers and their military leadership and we can
provide them with military aid, but no more funding. That's a direct threat to what you're saying about supporting Ukraine.
VON DER LEYEN: Absolutely. It is a direct threat. And I think this is something which in the election campaign the different parties have to
mention very clearly that people know what is at risk because Ukraine is securing our safety and security right now. They are fighting for our
freedom and we should be very clear about that. We are supporting Ukraine because it's not only about Ukraine, it's also about our own safety and
security.
AMANPOUR: But they don't seem to get it because they're very pro-Russia. They say it. The AfD, we want Russia back in the fold. We want to import
their gas. Here's what Marine Le Pen is saying. You had hostility for years from the Hungarian prime minister. He's no longer there.
[13:15:00]
VON DER LEYEN: And the good part is it shows things can be turned around. Hungary is a typical example for that where it was a very clear call also
from the Hungarian opposition what was going on and now Hungary is back into the circle of the Europeans again, back into the circle of
democracies.
AMANPOUR: But maybe the French won't be. I mean, you're looking ahead. You must have plans. Your own ministers have said that we have to learn to work
with Marine Le Pen.
VON DER LEYEN: Yes. The best -- that's not my quote. But the best part is to deliver on what we're working. The discussion we have right now is the
best to show what we are delivering for the people.
AMANPOUR: OK. Now, what about President Putin, who it's been a general article of faith amongst you all that he need not be brought back into the
community of nations until he follows the rule of international law regarding Ukraine, until he stops the war. And yet, President Trump has
invited him to the G20 summit. How does that help resolve this war?
VON DER LEYEN: If he comes, and I've said that already years ago in the G20, I would also welcome the possibility to say directly to him what we're
thinking about his war, what we're thinking about his behavior and what his responsibility is. So, this direct confrontation will also be something
we're going to take on.
AMANPOUR: Do you think though seriously that he is in that mood? When he came to Alaska, again out of the purview of the ICC, he essentially
appeared to get away with all those -- I was going to say get away with murder. It's an actual saying. But he seemed to be on very good standing.
He went away convincing the United States that he was a partner in good faith. And of course, we've seen what's happened since.
Are you worried that if he comes, he will again be able to affect the most powerful nation, i.e., the United States, about the way this war should
end? And he wants it on his terms.
VON DER LEYEN: Look, the truth of five years ago is still true today. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine is doomed. If Russia stops fighting, then
the war is over. And we should emphasize this over and over again. And again, I would be happy to tell him directly, face to face, what I think
about all this.
AMANPOUR: What would you say to him? Pretend I'm Putin.
VON DER LEYEN: No, let's not go into that. No. But there are so many things to discuss. So, if he comes, he can be prepared that he will have a
lot of pushback. And I don't know whether his people tell him the truth. So, this is also the possibility to tell them.
Last month, 42,000 Russian soldiers died or were seriously wounded because Ukraine so bravely resists. The frontline is holding in Ukraine. In 2024,
Russia had 19 percent of Ukraine occupied. Today, it's 20 percent. So, the frontline is stable and holding. Of course, both are now capable to hit in
their rears. But I think we should also see what the Ukrainians are able, capable to do. And this is, for example, something which we should tell
Putin face to face. I doubt that his people tell him that.
AMANPOUR: OK. And President Zelenskyy right here basically again warned that if he doesn't get the right weapons, i.e., the defensive weapons, it
could be make or break this winter. What are you able to tell him? Because you know that you're running out of these Patriots because of the war in
Iran and other such things.
VON DER LEYEN: Yes. And this is the reason why we are happily investing in that. You know that we have invested by now in Ukraine, supported Ukraine
is 225 billion euros. The latest was the 90-billion-euro loan. Now, this is an investment into military capabilities, not only from the partners, but
also in Ukraine companies, because we've seen how industrious and ingenious these companies are in rapidly producing the most smartest and advanced,
for example, defense capabilities.
AMANPOUR: And a final question about social media, which you have made very clear that you want regulations around children's ability to be online
and to have access. Tell me about where you are with that and what still needs to be done.
VON DER LEYEN: If we look at our children that are exposed to social media, they are exposed to most sophisticated technologies. These
technologies have not been developed with the well-being of our children in mind, but with the goal to capture their attention and to monetize their
attention. We know the results. There's quite a body of evidence now. Anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, sometimes suicide. We have to do
something.
And therefore, we've put forward a proposal that has, younger than 13 years, no social media at all. Younger than 15 years, no personal account.
And in the time between 13 and 15, the parents or the guardian can open a mini account, limited features, and time limited to one hour a day.
[13:20:00]
Because I think it is not a question whether our children have access to social media, it is a question whether and how social media has access to
our children.
Last point that is for me very important, we have a reversal of burden of proof. Today we have to find the mechanisms where social media is harming
our children. We reverse this burden of proof. Social media, the platforms, big tech has to tell and prove to us that their applications are safe for
children and do not harm, so that they take the responsibility that is necessary and that we can protect our children.
AMANPOUR: And I think you're the mother of five.
VON DER LEYEN: I'm a mother of seven.
AMANPOUR: Seven. On that note, Ursula von der Leyen, thank you so much for being with us.
VON DER LEYEN: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And there is a difference between five and seven. Stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, more on this major moment between China and the United States, the superpowers. President Xi said in a written statement that
China and the U.S. should be, quote, "partners rather than rivals." But from artificial intelligence to trade and to the fate of Taiwan, how to
have a constructive relationship between these two rival powers?
Well, Kevin Rudd knows Xi Jinping and China better than maybe any other Western leader. As Australian Prime Minister, he met Xi many times and
studied him extensively. He also served as ambassador to the U.S. and is now global president and CEO of the Asia Society. He joined me from there
earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, welcome back to our program.
KEVIN RUDD, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA: Great to be with you.
AMANPOUR: So, the big summit that everybody's watching, of course, is not happening here, but in Washington between Presidents Trump and Xi. And I
think a lot of leaders and a lot of people around the world are putting a huge amount of stock into this because of the incredible challenges that
are facing us all.
Orville Schell, another great expert, said don't expect a Nixon goes to China moment. What do you think? Is this a possibility of a big meeting
between the two or is it the best we can expect, just keeping things on an even keel? What do you think?
RUDD: I think this is playing out of two layers and two levels, Christiane. Firstly, in Beijing, if I read all the official commentary in
the last 24, 48 hours, what's it about? It's about the fact that the United States is now treating China with an equal status in the world, that this
relationship is now being driven at a leader level, which they describe as the compass and ballast strategy for the U.S.-China relationship.
That within that, Xi Jinping has said, making America great again and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is all mutually compatible. We'd
like to have a constructive and strategically realist relationship with you.
[13:25:00]
And -- but by the way, never forget our four fundamental red lines about Taiwan, human rights, democracy, and the rest. That's the Chinese official
narrative. And what do I pick as the subtext from all that? They want to stabilize the U.S.-China relationship. The American counterpoint in terms
of their aspirations is also, I think, about stabilization, but with some core asks on the question of critical minerals, rare earths and
agricultural trade.
AMANPOUR: So, that's really interesting because the way you describe what's coming out of China is very much of an established power who sees
the rest of the world actually taking it much more seriously, maybe even more seriously than it takes the United States right now. But the two have
to have some kind of stabilization.
Do you think that the personal relationship, which President Trump plays up a lot, is enough to stabilize or are the issues so much more complicated
than they were in the past?
RUDD: The bottom line, Christiane, is that the relationship personally between the President and Xi Jinping is important. The Chinese actually
have a doctrine called leader-led diplomacy when it comes to great powers, and that's how the Chinese approach it. But when you go to Beijing, as I
did in recent weeks, they also ask this question, can the personal chemistry, which apparently exists between the two leaders, be translated
into the nuts and bolts of the relationship?
And that's where you get the breakdown into trade and tariffs, the breakdown into critical minerals and rare earths, the breakdown in terms of
critical technologies, that's semiconductors, but also the breakdown now in terms of what do both sides agree to, if they can, in terms of bilateral
guardrails on artificial intelligence. So, that's the question being posed, whether personal chemistry is translated into the machinery of the
relationship, and the jury is still out on that.
AMANPOUR: So, I want to ask you actually first about A.I., because in these weeks leading up to this summit, there was so much and there has been
so much from inside the A.I. tech companies warning the world that actually we need to, and the latest word is pace ourselves. Not sure that much has
been said about it here in the halls behind me, but a lot of people depending almost on a China-U.S. deal on this or some kind of agreement on
this.
What do you think is realistic? Because Trump says, look, the fears are a hoax, that we need to keep going because we need to dominate as we are
right now. Xi has said, or at least the Chinese government has suggested that they are also concerned about the harmful aspects of A.I. So, can we
as a world expect these two leaders, the leaders in this field, to come up with some kind of guardrail policy now?
RUDD: I think they can come up with a machinery through which to deal with that, but we should be under no illusions about the framework within which
this occurs. Number one, as you've just said, Christian, President Trump has made it very clear that who wins the race on A.I. wins, and therefore
he sees this as elemental, foundational within the overall framework of strategic competition with China. That's his view, and publicly articulated
again within the last week.
But you know something, the Chinese view, perhaps not stated as starkly as that, but if you look at the entrails of China's A.I. strategy, it's much
the same. So, this actually is a race, whether people wish to recognize it as such or not.
However, second point, within the race, the United States, despite its deregulatory emphasis for the A.I. industry within this country, the United
States, in the last few months has begun to publicly recognize that frontier models are inherently potentially dangerous in terms of their
ability to break out, to act autonomously, to attack people's infrastructure, or to be so deployed by rogue states or rogue actors.
The Chinese have been much slower to recognize that as a parallel danger, though if I read again the Chinese official literature in the last several
days, they are beginning to come round to a similar conclusion. So, where does this get to? On the question of A.I., and let's call it dangerous
A.I., that is, A.I. agents potentially out of control, this is sufficiently perceived as a threat to both countries that the guardrails mechanism which
Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, articulated a day or two ago, provides at least a piece of intergovernmental machinery to wrestle this
one to the ground. That's where the debate's up to as of today.
AMANPOUR: OK. And you talk about the dangers, and I notice when you say read, I know that you read and speak the Chinese language, so you know a
lot of what's going on.
[13:30:00]
You also know that in your own country, this danger has happened. There's been a hack, I think by an OpenAI agent, into some of the national health
care files. Tell us about it. Why wasn't it able to be stopped? What does that tell us? Can governments wait for, you know, these agreements or
technology to help preserve vital, you know, institutions and databases?
RUDD: When we have frontier models agents released into the system then what happens is that potentially the cyber defenses around critical pieces
of social and economic infrastructure then become vulnerable particularly if they've not been tested prior to the event. And as a consequence of
that, the cyber defenses having been adjusted.
What happened as I understand it with OpenAI and its attack on various elements of the Australian health care system was that inadequate testing
occurred. But here is the problem. There was no notification by OpenAI either of the Australian government, which is why the Australian prime
minister reacted directly firmly and in a no qualifications -- no holds barred direction yesterday. Because frankly these companies have a deep
responsibility to those using their software to notify if something has broken out.
More broadly, what's this about? As models are released you cannot safely do so unless they prior to the event been tested against existing cyber
defenses within the social economic, and dare I say military infrastructure of countries around the world. In particular, these two large powers. That
is the guts of what now needs to be discussed and resolved between the two countries in the world who are currently almost uniquely producing these
frontier models.
AMANPOUR: And, Kevin Rudd, what about the other very major issues that you just listed trade tariffs rare earths and not to mention Taiwan and the war
on Iran? What do you think is the most important thing that you would look to coming out of this summit on any of those?
RUDD: On the trade question, can I put it in these terms, Christiane? The Chinese deep interest is to ensure through their new relationship of
constructive strategic stability with Washington as they describe it. That's their framing that there are no surprises in terms of either a
snapback to pre-existing tariff regimes as imposed by the United States against Chinese exports let alone the imposition of a new round of tariffs
on China's trade.
The reason for that is the Chinese domestic economy is not performing well. Its principal growth engine at present is net exports and therefore if
there is a further threat from to that either by the United States flipping back to previous tariff regimes or adding to them which the U.S. can do or
the Europeans for example to defend European manufacturing given what's happening in Germany at present doing the same this is potentially lethal
for the Chinese economic model.
Therefore, the big interest from Beijing is to ensure that no further tariff increases occur from the U.S. side. Their quid pro quo demand is
this normalize the trade in critical minerals and rare earths. These bans effectively introduced by China about six to 12 months ago are still
effectively in force in relation to China and Japan -- U.S. and Japan. And for this summit to be successful and for the U.S. to conclude that it will
not further increase tariffs against the United States.
The bottom line is that President Trump expects President Xi to be able to normalize the trade in critical minerals and rare earths to the U.S. to
Japan which are essential to so much the manufacturing activity in advanced manufacturing activity in those countries. I think that's where the core of
the tariff trade debate will go.
AMANPOUR: But you remember it was the Trump tariffs that sparked a retaliatory move by Xi on these critical minerals. So, it worked because
the administration here pulled back somewhat. So, who has the upper hand in this critical you know quid pro quo that you're talking about right now?
RUDD: Well, both sides believe they have leverage on this. The American argument is as follows. We know that our tariffs are potentially damaging
to the Chinese growth model. Don't push us too far.
[13:35:00]
Secondly, they point to this, last year when the two leaders first met at Busan in South Korea and the margins of the APEC summit that there was an
agreement in terms of a U.S. tariff pause against China in exchange for the normalization of critical minerals and rare earths trade. The American
argument therefore is that China is not fully delivered on this. The Chinese counterpoint is this, that's all fine and dandy, Uncle Sam. But at
the same time, we want you to relax your export controls on the most advanced technologies to China. Most particularly the most advanced
semiconductor chips.
So, the horse trade is in fact a triangular one about tariff rates in aggregate on the one hand critical minerals and rare earths over here. And
the third element of the triangle being critical technologies and export controls by the U.S. to China. Where will that land to stabilize the
relationship, my judgment is that the Chinese should compromise on the question of critical minerals and rare earths. They also could assist the
president significantly by increasing and normalizing China's importation of U.S. agricultural products particularly in the lead up to the midterms.
AMANPOUR: And finally, given that war is around us obviously and that given the U.S. war on Iran, China appears to be sitting back and allowing
the U.S. to shoot itself in the foot. But what does that mean in the context of Taiwan.
RUDD: Well, China's strategy towards Taiwan has not changed. It wants to take Taiwan either voluntarily through a political agreement or if
ultimately that doesn't happen through the use of military force. Chinese doctrine is very clear on this. The response to that from the United States
and its allies for decades has been deterrence, deterrence, deterrence. That is, if China was to act unilaterally militarily that it would face the
risk of not succeeding militarily. And that would be catastrophic for both Xi Jinping and for the regime as a whole.
Where does this now stand? Well, President Trump and Xi Jinping discussed this at some length in Beijing in May. You saw subsequent statements by the
president indicating that Taiwan was in fact a very long way away from America. But on top of that, can I say the following, that the real meat
and potatoes of this right now, is will the president continue to defer the most recently agreed $14 billion package of arms sales already ratified by
the United States Congress and deliver them to Taiwan, or will as he said back in May this be held out as some sort of leverage point to be used both
against Taipei and against Beijing?
What's my punt? I think we won't see this arms sale executed to Taiwan this year. But I wouldn't be at all surprised the United States begins resuming
its arms sales to Taiwan early next year.
AMANPOUR: Really interesting. Because you've put the possibility of conflict over 20 -- over Taiwan for 2028 at roughly one in three. That's
all we have time for. But thank you so much for your really incredible knowledge and perspective as we watch this summit, which is probably one of
the most important meetings in a long, long time between world leaders. Kevin Rudd, thank you for being with us.
RUDD: Good to be with you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: And now, as the United States and other donors slash foreign aid, conflicts from Yemen to Sudan are driving new humanitarian
emergencies. Tjada McKenna leads Prosper Global and has just returned from Syria, and she tells Hari Sreenivasan what she and her team have seen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, thanks. Tjada McKenna, thanks so much for joining us.
This is the U.N. General Assembly Week, and you're here in New York in part to talk about some of the crises that your teams are seeing in Yemen. Just
recently, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimates that because of the decade of conflict, there are more
than 22 million people over half the population that are in need of humanitarian assistance. Tell me, what are your teams on the ground seeing?
TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA, CEO, PROSPER GLOBAL: Yes. So, in recent days, the U.N. estimates about 125,000 people are newly displaced, meaning they've
left where they were living because of the war and moved to other places. And our teams that were already on the ground in Taiz, a major city where
people are coming to and also migrating through, we are seeing that.
We are seeing a huge influx of people arriving dehydrated, exhausted, having endured a difficult and costly journey looking for shelter, food,
water, and then other things to sustain their families as they figure out how to get to safety and stay safe.
SREENIVASAN: We should remind our audience that there was a truce brokered by the U.N. back in 2022. Things had gotten a little bit better. But what's
happened recently to make this so much worse?
MCKENNA: You know, the -- this is a conflict that has been ongoing for a while. There is a recent escalation, so it's just gotten much worse in
recent days. But what we've really been focused on is just the needs, the crippling needs that we now see in the community. And these are people that
have been under the situation for quite a while.
Yemen, the U.N. estimates kind of how much is needed to help in a situation. This crisis was already only funded at 20 percent. So, these are
people that are underfunded that many have had to move already multiple times and who've been struggling with impacts from Red Sea, Strait of
Hormuz with increasing food and fuel costs as well. So, it's a dire situation.
SREENIVASAN: Yes. So, what happens when 125,000 people move all at once? I mean, that's a sizable population for anywhere. But the place that you are
providing aid kind of illustrate that for me.
MCKENNA: Yes. We have an example of a family that we've worked with recently. It's a 67-year-old grandmother of seven grandchildren. And so, at
some point that makes their life living on livestock has a lot of animals, livestock. And at some point, they had to make the determination if they
could stay safe where they were, if they would leave. Obviously, a lot of people probably chose to leave the area at the same time. And so, they --
she sold whatever livestock she could to get cash for that journey. And a lot a lot of it left behind.
They left with the clothes on their back. They've made the journey along the way. They've had to find shelter and places to stay. Their money has
been depleted very quickly. And you have these seven grandchildren of various ages, you know, doing this arduous journey. And costs are expensive
when this kind of migration is happening, market forces prevail. There's a shortage of everything along the way and things are at a premium. So, this
is -- it's really a tough situation.
SREENIVASAN: The U.N. Population Fund estimates that among those people that are displaced now, there's at least 2,000 pregnant women that are also
refugees. What kind of health infrastructure are those pregnant women walking to or getting to?
MCKENNA: Yes. And obviously pregnant women. One of the things we're seeing is people arrive as dehydration and pregnant women require much more water
throughout the day. So, it's so it's very dark. The health systems in Thais and surrounding areas were already very strained. They were prioritizing
emergency surgeries and critical care. There are not specialists for a lot of things. They face basic shortages of things like blood and oxygen. Also,
the increased fuel costs have also impaired their generators and their ambulance services.
So, you have pregnant women who are probably dehydrated, need some more immediate support and going into a health system that already is very
crippled. So, it's just another layer of complication. So, I shudder to think what's happening to with someone who might be having complications in
a pregnancy or need a higher level of need.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: Let's talk a little bit about the ripple effect here that we're usually not seeing on the news of what's happening in the Strait of
Hormuz. Most people in the United States are connecting the dots and saying, well, my fuel prices are up. But in Yemen, which imports the
majority of its food, tell me what has happened to the price of food? What's happened to the price of fuel? And what's the effect?
MCKENNA: This really -- we talk about fuel. This is very much a food crisis. Yemen imports the vast majority of food. That food comes over on
the same containers. The other component of this is this is also where fertilizer comes from. A lot of the fertilizer in the region has to come
through that area. So, for the agricultural producers that are in Yemen facing a planting season where they have like a very small window to make a
decision and get things in the ground, like a shortage of fertilizer that drives prices up can affect the food supply available locally for months
and years to come.
In terms of the average population of the food cost, as food is more at a premium, there's less of it available. The price of that has risen. And
also, in places like Yemen, they require fuel a lot of times for generators. It's not just for automobiles are getting around. It's for
generators. And if you think about the whole food supply system, it's not only less food coming in, but the cost to transport that food and to get it
around the country is now more expensive.
And ultimately, it's consumers, it's the average citizen, civilian that's just trying to survive that that is paying the price. They -- the people in
these situations pay a much higher percentage of their income and their money for food than we would ever imagine doing in the U.S. or Europe.
SREENIVASAN: You're here during a week where there are literally countries on stages that are in different ways pledging support to different types of
causes. And you've pointed out that the commitments are not making it all the way to the ground. When you say 20 percent of the kind of funding that
is necessary, break that down for me.
MCKENNA: What that has meant in real time over recent years is, you know, in times where we've supplied food, we may have had to cut the rations to
feed a family of two versus a family of four. Now, obviously, it's still a family of four. In many cases, it's a larger family. And so, the little
support we were able to we've been able to provide sometimes has - it's just meant less support to the people who urgently need it.
And especially now with other complications of food, it also might mean less support to the people who are more remote and further away. And I just
can't stress enough the resilience of the civilians in Yemen. It is just quite low. They've been through several rounds of displacements, already
have been suffering the effects of this war. And now, it's just dramatically worsened in a very short period of time.
So, people are thinking about like today and how they stay safe and worried about conflict coming further in. But they're also thinking about what this
means for their tomorrows. And so, when we talk about the need to fund the crisis, we also we can't just think about the lifesaving moment. We also
have to be thinking what happens next week, next month. And how do people rebuild their resilience or gird up to try to live as normal of a life as
possible?
SREENIVASAN: You know, when you talk about people who have been displaced multiple times, it also makes me wonder about, I guess, what is the sense
of community here? If everyone is transient or if you can't really count on anybody to stick around the relationships that you make. I mean, all of
that, a sense of not just home, but a sense of place.
MCKENNA: It's heartbreaking. We -- one of the families that we worked with recently, they had to walk 18 hours to get to Taiz. But the family that
they have that is based there, that they would have stayed with, also decided to also leave themselves. People who are remaining behind, there is
a strong community spirit.
People that have remained behind are really trying to support one another as others come in and keep their networks going. But these are things that
families suffer over time. I was in Sudan a few months ago and years into the civil war and people are just starting to reunite or try to go back to
one place. So, these ties are there and they're just disrupting normal life for people. And so, it's even less of a safety net as well.
SREENIVASAN: You also took a recent trip, a humanitarian trip to Syria, and there are five and a half million people still in these different
displacement camps. I mean, what is that society like now?
MCKENNA: Yes. So, after 14 years of civil war, I was able -- I did a bit of a road trip from Aleppo to Damascus. And really, you're looking at a
country of rubble, particularly outside of Damascus. So, much damage and destruction. I've heard of families -- a participant was telling me that
her family -- her house was one of the levels was raised. There's one room that has a functioning window. And so, their family of six has collapsed
into this one room.
[13:50:00]
And we see that -- as I saw buildings that were destroyed, you'd see water tanks on the top of those buildings. So, people are still trying to live in
those areas. So, the infrastructure is also just severely damaged. We've been doing a lot of work trying to rebuild the water infrastructure. So,
people are trying to go back to their communities. But a lot of the basic systems have been damaged and destroyed. And so, trying to figure out how
to make life again.
AMANPOUR: Prosper Global estimates that 16 million people, nearly 70 percent of the population, has some sort of humanitarian needs assistance.
Just -- like it's hard for someone to take a big abstract number like that and put it in perspective. But are we just talking about, you know, seven
out of 10 people that are in Syria today don't have the means to support themselves, have a job, keep their family safe?
MCKENNA: Yes. And, you know, in terms of like individuals and what this looks like, you know, a woman, Ola (ph), I met, her husband was injured in
the conflict. So, he used to be the one that did the work. So, now, she has a small plot of land and she has to figure out how to make it work. And so,
just even the provision of seeds and things to help her get started to get going again have then allowed her on her own to do more. For some people,
it's getting access to clean water every day. That's the challenge.
So, people, when I talk to them, they're like, we're looking for opportunities to work, to trade, to really gain our livelihoods back and
for normal life to resume. But for some households, it's much worse. They have not been able to have a livelihood or having difficulties rebounding.
And so, they still need like basic things like food and water and medical services are very scarce in situations like this as well.
SREENIVASAN: You know, we've talked about Yemen and your recent trip to Syria, but I'd be remiss in not mentioning Gaza also sort of in the
neighborhood. And according to the U.N., 1.9 million Palestinians in Gaza, or about 90 percent of the population, have been displaced during that war.
From the teams that you have in the region. What is the most essential requirement for civilians there right now?
MCKENNA: What we're seeing, the sewage system has been completely destroyed. There's a real lack of access to clean water. And you're seeing
a lot of like skin diseases and other infections. And the sewage system has been a real problem. And you still have a lot of people crammed into very
small areas and with inadequate housing. So, very subject to weather conditions.
We have really been focused on getting clean water to people, as well as providing direct assistance for people to be able to prioritize where they
spend their money. There's still a lot of basic needs are being unmet. At the same time in Gaza, for people who are able to work, we have a program
called Gaza Sky Geeks, where for years we've been training people on remote work.
We've also been able to offer some co-working spaces with electricity and Wi-Fi access so that people who can try to go back to a normal life. But it
is very much still a population that's crammed into a very small area. Most of the housing supply has been destroyed. And the lack of sewage is a real
problem for health and survival.
SREENIVASAN: You've been doing this work for a while, and I wonder if you feel like this is some sort of a real-life version of the "Hunger Games"
where people are competing to try to get the attention of folks around the planet and saying, look, look at my crisis, look at how bad this is. You
know, please help.
MCKENNA: It is a very dark time in the world. And I think the nature of warfare, I think in the past few years, we've allowed we've allowed the
nature of warfare to be much more dangerous and deadly to civilians. A lot more attacks on civilian infrastructure like energy, power plants, ports,
hospitals, things that civilians need to survive. Like we've seen a proliferation of that.
And it is -- you know, I almost hate to mention how big the numbers are. We have to communicate there's this large need. But behind those numbers are
individuals with great individual stories. I've met them. I've met these people. And they're like you and me. And at the same time, we also are
seeing climate related disasters like the landslide in Nepal or the earthquake in Venezuela.
And so, these are all individuals trying to make a way for themselves. And I think we have to -- within the bigger picture we have to think about that
and really prioritize making things safe for civilians where civilians aren't suffering collectively because of conflicts between parties that
they're not a party to.
SREENIVASAN: The CEO of Prosper Global, Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, thank you so much.
MCKENNA: Thank you. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Humanitarianism under stress.
[13:55:00]
And finally, it's also Climate Week here in New York. But this massive crisis barely got a look in with geopolitics and A.I. crowding the agenda.
Halfway around the world in Borneo, some are not waiting for the diplomats to get their act together. Their moms on motorbikes and they call
themselves the power of mama.
146 women from 10 villages in the area trained to fight fires and fly surveillance drones. And this year is a rough one as a super El Nino dries
out the region. One village hasn't seen rain since late June. As the speeches here in New York wrap up today, this brave band of sisters will
still be on the front line, out on patrol.
And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from our week at the U.N.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
