Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former Chief of Staff to Vice President Mike Pence Marc Short; Interview with "The Common Good Economy" Author Mariana Mazzucato; Interview with "Darwin's Lock" Author Joshua Cooper Ramo. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 30, 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.
Violence in the cockpit and a plunging flight bound for Israel. We have the details. Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, you must be worried about the midterms.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't worry about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The midterms loom with record low approval ratings for President Trump. Amid growing Republican discontent, GOP strategist Marc Short tells
me what the party needs to do now.
And --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Britain with belief again, people with hope again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The U.K.'s new Labour prime minister promises to deliver at his first party conference. Can he address the affordability crisis and
economic growth? I ask economist and author Mariana Mazzucato.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSHUA COOPER RAMO, AUTHOR, "DARWIN'S LOCK": Trump's own lived experience of the last 18 months has been trying to do things to damage China and to
discover that the result was hurting the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: SCIUTTO: - takeaways from Trump and Xi's DC summit. Author Joshua Cooper Ramo discusses U.S.-China relations and his new book,
"Darwin's Lock."
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
A foiled attack, a potential hijacking according to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a pilot on an Israel-bound flight was stabbed
by another one, another pilot. The FlyDubai plane, with nearly 200 people aboard, was forced to make an emergency landing in Saudi Arabia after crew
members and passengers finally overpowered the assailant, whose motive is still unclear at this time. Israeli officials say it could have been a
terrorist attack. Many of those passengers on board have now made it home, arriving at Israel's Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv.
So, let's bring in correspondent Eleni Giokos. She is coming to us from Dubai. I think that was the origin of the flight. What can you tell us,
Eleni, from what any officials are telling you about how this could have happened like this?
ELENI GIOKOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I know, and what's interesting is most of the information that we're getting is from Israeli officials,
Israeli sources, as well as passengers and their experience. FlyDubai, for its part, has put out two press releases. In the morning, they said it was
an incident. They didn't say it was a violent altercation. We already had that news from Israeli officials. And a short while ago, about a couple of
hours ago, they put out another press release, and they say it was an altercation.
And they've also been very clear about not speculating around why and how this happened, and to allow the investigation to go through. And frankly,
it feels like this is a message to Israel because it says that, we urge all parties to refrain from premature speculation. We know that Israeli sources
have been very clear around this being a terror attack.
What we've heard from passengers was absolutely harrowing, Christiane. I mean, frankly, you loud screams were heard. Eventually when the cockpit
opened up, still not very clear on how that happened, but passengers intervened and were able to neutralize the co-pilot that stabbed the pilot,
again, according to Israeli officials. And then there were two FlyDubai crew members that were able to stabilize the plane after it descended
dramatically by 17,400 feet in two minutes, and then land safely in northwestern Saudi Arabia.
AMANPOUR: Honestly, it sounds miraculous the way they managed to stabilize the plane that's another crew apparently was on board to be able to do
that, and that it landed. I'm still confused, or I'm sure we all are, how is it that in the post-9/11 world that secure door, you know, between the
cockpit and the plane, how could the passengers breach it? I mean, that was a stroke of luck as well.
[13:05:00]
GIOKOS: Exactly. And aviation experts that we've spoken to say that either the pilot was able to open it up because there's now sort of this firewall
in place, you can only open up the cockpit from the inside, I guess, not taking into account that you could have an altercation between the pilots.
So, the hypothesis is that they either use an axe, which is used for emergency emergencies, that they, you know, passengers and crew could have
used that to open up the door or the pilot was able to breach that. The other sort of questions that we're asking right now is what was the source
of the argument and sort of the altercation here.
But what is very telling and when this story broke, Christiane, and we're looking at the numbers, we're like, OK, this flight had to do an emergency
landing. The big red flag was this massive drop in the altitude. But it wasn't only that, according to flight radar, airplanes release what they
call a score code. Initially, it was just an emergency code, which is normal for and universal for planes that are going through some kind of
emergency.
But then it shifted its code, which basically highlights a hijacking possibility. Then it changed its code again to just an emergency. And that
really activated everyone in the region, specifically the Israeli prime minister that got into a cabinet meeting with security and then fighter
jets, Israeli fighter jets, then scrambled to see what was going on.
So, there's a lot of interesting things that transpired. But I think as we start to get more information, specifically from passengers in terms of how
harrowing it was, the people that were close to the cockpit and had that firsthand experience, the images we're seeing of people, you know, covered
in blood shows that this was absolutely serious and could have been a tragedy had the pilots, the extra pilots on the aircraft not stabilized
this plane.
AMANPOUR: I'm sure it's difficult, and I'd love to hear from an aviation expert. I mean, to plunge two thirds pretty much of the altitude, it must
be there must be a point of no return below which you can't stabilize or bring a plane up. So, that also was amazing.
The other thing is, you know, obviously, Israel does not have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. None of those passengers on board would have
had any visas or anything like that. So, that, you know, clearly, it turned out fine, and they were all taken back home. But that must have been pretty
politically fraught as well.
GIOKOS: Absolutely. And you're right to say, I mean, Saudi Arabia, Israel have not normalized relations. I mean, it's a hot button issue. We know
that President Trump has been talking about this for quite some time. There's a lot of pressure on Saudi Arabia. We know the UAE has normalized
with Israel. That's why we have flights from Dubai that head into Tel Aviv. It's a very popular route. And then you have, you know, a plane that was
destined for Israel with a lot of Israelis on board that now are stuck in Saudi Arabia.
There is precedent, though, in terms of Saudi Arabia assisting Israelis to get out and repatriate back to Israel. There have been two other incidents
over the years, and this has gone very smoothly. So, there's a lot of diplomatic effort that goes on behind the scenes.
I spoke to one political analyst a short while ago who says to me that Saudi Arabia is also trying not to sort of show, at least publicly, that
they're getting closer to Israel. So, that's really important at a from this being an aviation problem, because you mentioned 9/11. You mentioned
how many sort of firewalls have been put in place into airports and vetting of pilots. What went wrong here is going to be the big question. I mean,
Israeli officials said that the co-pilot was an Omani national. And now, there's going to be an investigation into this. How could an Omani national
be a pilot?
So, we still haven't heard from UAE authorities. FlyDubai has not given a lot of information around this. So, we really are just relying on Israeli
sources right now as we're waiting to hear more of the news. The one good piece of news that we've seen is the passengers landing at Ben-Gurion
Airport. And what's very striking is there are a lot of children on board this flight. One can only imagine how absolutely harrowing it must have
been, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Indeed, indeed, indeed. I mean, oh, terrible. But at least it seems all these people have got home safe and sound, despite some of the
scrapes that they -- I mean, it's just incredible that they managed to survive and keep that plane in the air until it landed. Obviously, Eleni,
thank you so much. Obviously, the big question is, who was that assailant? How did he get into a cockpit with a weapon if that's what he had? And what
was the motive? We'll wait to hear. We'll wait to hear as soon as we can. The answer to those questions. Eleni, thanks again for being with us.
Now, Americans go to the polls in just over a month for the midterms, both in the United States and here abroad.
[13:10:00]
They are widely viewed as a referendum on President Trump's policies, from the cost of living to soaring energy prices and the president's own low
approval ratings. Republicans face an uphill battle. In some of the most competitive districts, GOP candidates are now distancing themselves from
the president's record, chief among them his war on Iran and the pocketbook fallout.
For more on all of this, Marc Short joins me from Washington. He's chairman of advancing American freedom and he served as chief of staff for Vice
President Mike Pence during Trump 1.0. Marc Short, welcome back to the program.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: Can I just first ask you, let's stay in the Middle East. Good to have you on. This Iran war is really now becoming something that
Republicans can't just sort of sit back and kind of look at that. A lot of them anyway, actively distancing themselves from the fallout. Talk to me a
little bit about the impact that's having on the midterms.
SHORT: Well, I think it's hard to divorce the war from the president's trade policy in a lot of ways, Christiane, because I think there's a lot of
focus right now on how high diesel prices are and the impact that's having on farmers, what's happening to fertilizer costs. But so much of that was
already was already a precursor in the sense that the trade policy created a big challenge for farmers because as part of the retaliation from this
global war on trade is a lot of their markets then were shut down and they didn't have anywhere to export them.
So, now you're compounding that with the extra prices. And I think what you're seeing in America is what were reliably red Republican states in the
heartland of America where you have some of the most contested races this fall. And so, undoubtedly the price of the wars Iran is something Americans
are feeling from an affordability perspective. But I think in a lot of ways it was already elevated because of the trade war.
AMANPOUR: So, of course, by trade war, you mean the thing that involved all these tariffs and cause such pain to the actual Americans as well.
SHORT: Yes. The so-called liberation day. Yes.
AMANPOUR: Right. Yes. I'll let you say so-called. It certainly has backfired on many American businesses and farmers, as you say, and frankly,
the whole global economy, as we can see. But I want to play a few little soundbites fragments that we've put together regarding actual Republicans
who are running or who are in office are talking about the impact of the Iran war and all the other things you're talking about in terms of
inflation and the prices at the pumps.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TOM TIFFANY (R-WI): President has final say in regards to this. But I just believe that we should be exiting Iran, that it's time to move on,
time to come home, take care of business here in America.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Operation Epic Fury was an epic success. And by the way, Global Strike Command and Barksdale were at the center of that
great success. The world is safer because of it. But now we've got to bring that to a resolution. And the Strait of Hormuz not being open affects
commerce. It expects directly affects gas prices and fuel prices and also the price of groceries.
REP. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO (R-WV): I think that's been a bit of a disappointment to the American people that we aren't at the end, especially
when they see gas prices going up. So, would I tell the president and the war now? Yes, I would.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, Marc Short, that's a group of Congress people, including the House Speaker, Mike Johnson was in the middle there. Tell me the not that
they seem to be in because they could have pulled back much earlier. This was unpopular with the American people, including Republicans from the very
beginning, unusually because wars are usually rally around the flag, at least at the beginning.
Why is it only now on the brink of potentially disastrous midterms that they're beginning to put their foot in the water about this?
SHORT: Well, Christiane, I think it's because of the midterms. But I think that, you know, the word you use there in the beginning, I think is what's
most important. I perhaps come at this from a different perspective. I'm supportive of the president's efforts here. I think that there could be
significant peace dividend into the future. And I think the reality is the economic sanctions are showing they're actually having significant impact
on Iran.
And so, I think the policy and what the military has done has been extraordinarily successful in the military strikes. But where I think that
the administration failed was on the front end. There was never the time or effort to put in to tell the American people, here's what I hope to
achieve.
Here's what the cost to America will be. Here's what elevated energy prices could look like. And instead, I think the administration gave multiple
different explanations. At one point, it was regime change. Another point, it was to deny nuclear weapons. Another point, it was to degrade their
military capacity.
And so, I think that Iran for 47 years has been a nemesis that has been killing and murdering innocent Westerners. And I think that actually the
president's -- you know, the policy here is actually a good one.
[13:15:00]
But I think on the front end, there was never an explanation to the American people to say, here's what the objective is. Here's what we're
going about trying to achieve. And so, now you're a month out from Election Day. And the number one issue that I think Americans elected Donald Trump
for, I'd say there were two. One was to secure the border and the second was to fix the inflation that has skyrocketed during the Biden years.
And you now are not seeing the inflation resolved. You're seeing an affordability issue that's still number one for the American people. And
the war in Iran and higher energy prices just feed into that. So, I think that's why you're seeing at this point members look to have some distance.
AMANPOUR: Let's take you at face value and say that this was a successful operation and that it is doing what the president hoped. But that jury is
still out. But more to the point, knowing what the people think about it, at rallies, he said that the costs literally, quote, "inexpensive" compared
to what dividend they will pay back. So, even now, it seems that he's not willing to pull back. And it seems he's doubling down on the actual war or
the economic blockade of Iran or whatever it is. You heard at the U.N. he vowed to annihilate Iran.
So, none of us, including, I suppose, the American people, perhaps yourself, actually know what the next steps are for the president. In other
words, he seems to be doubling down on the things that the American people, including Republican voters, are very concerned about right now.
SHORT: Again, Christiane, I concur that I think there's been a lot of mixed messaging. I think one of the things that, you know, is most
disappointing is unfulfilled expectations. And I think that the president said expectation this would be solved in a matter of days or I have the
capacity to annihilate. And so, I think the messaging has been has been off. I just separate that from the operation itself.
And again, I think that there was not a clear explanation provided on the front end to the American people about why this this engagement is
important. And I think that there could be, again, significant piece of it into the future years. But that case has not been made to the American
people.
And so, here you are again a month out from Election Day. What Americans see is they see higher gas prices. They see higher prices at the grocery
store because it costs more to transport goods to the store. And so, it's a what they're simply feeling is a lack of clarity of what the objective is
and also feeling higher prices. And so, I think what was what was missed was an opportunity on the front end to go to the American people and say,
here's the threat. And here's what I'm going to do about it.
AMANPOUR: Let's drill down on some on some specific issues, quoting some of the Republicans who are up for election. So, let's take Ken Paxton,
already a controversial type, but he's a top Trump loyalist. He was backed by the president during the primary. He was heard in a private recording
saying that Trump has been, quote, "hurting GOP candidates polling after his summit," that sort of midterm, you know, MAGA summit he had convention
earlier this month.
And then data centers, the whole country -- OK, I'm exaggerating. But there's significant pushback in the country, bipartisan pushback on data
centers, significant fear about the future of A.I. and what these data centers particularly will do in Ohio, 75 percent of voters oppose
construction and other states share that trend. But he claims all of this is a hoax. Is he -- how do you explain that for a president trying to lead
his party to success?
SHORT: Well, let's separate the two. I think that Ken Paxton arguing that somebody else is a dragon on a ticket is quite ironic because I think most
would agree that Texas has been a Republican state that likely would be with it with a different nominee.
I think when it comes to the data centers, the reality is that China wants to win this war on A.I. They want to be ahead of us. And there's actually
reporting out today about how China, Russia, Iran collaborating to sow more and more discontent amongst Americans about data centers and the growth of
A.I. I think that there's naturally a lot of fear about what's happening with A.I. When you have Anthropic talking about sort of the end of the
world or Bill Gates going on NBC and saying that up to a billion people could die. That's going to create a lot of unrest.
What has not been focused on or discussed is the reality of what the economic benefit has been with the growth of these data centers in many
rural communities. You've seen significant revenue come in. Property taxes declined significantly in many of the myths about water usage are just
misplaced.
But we're in a we're in a global competition here with China who would like nothing more than for the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., to regulate it
and to slow it down. And I don't think, again, that there's been a cohesive argument provided other than to simply, you know, dismiss the complaints as
a hoax. And when a lot of Americans have concerns and fears, you need to do more than say it's simply a hoax, you need to explain here's what -- here's
again what the alternative is, here's who we're competing with, and here's why it's important that America stay in front in this race.
[13:20:00]
And now, I think you just see simply a lot of Republicans who are fearful about the midterm results, and they're trying to glob on to kind of a
populist appeal. And I think it looks fairly opportunistic at this point.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And you were saying just at the beginning of this response, you sort of said, you know, Paxton himself is a drag on the ticket, but
don't forget it was President Trump who supported him in his primary against the sitting senator from the Republican side.
SHORT: He did. He did. But, Christiane, even in that case, the president endorsed Paxton when it became clear that Paxton was going to win. Like,
there's a lot of narrative that that was Trump. The reality is he was just sort of running to the front of the parade because of where it was going.
Now, it is a fair argument to say that Trump could have supported Cornyn earlier, and that would have made a difference. But his endorsement came so
late, it was pretty much because he knew it was going to happen.
AMANPOUR: OK. Well, I'm not sure which is better, that he did that, or he should have done the other one, who might have actually won. But let me ask
you actually about, this is very important, because as you said rightly, many people voted for him because of his promise about securing the border.
But that, according to many Americans, has gone too far. And even some of his most loyal Republican backers, legislators from some of the most
important states, like Florida, for instance, Representative Salazar, has come out and tried to tell him, not attacking him, but tried to tell him
that his policy has just gone too far, and Hispanics are really reacting. Here's what she said about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR (R-FL): Mr. President, some of your immigration enforcement efforts have gone too far. Be careful what your advisers are
telling you about immigration policies. The same Hispanics who helped you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's a campaign ad, but it's pretty explosive. It's directly talking to the president, not attacking him, but saying you need
better advice and better advisers. What do you think about that, and does the president need better advice and better advisers?
SHORT: I think that the president had historic gains among the Hispanic community in '24, and I think contrary to what a lot of people perceive,
the reality is that for many Hispanics, they came here legally, and they were very concerned about how out of control the border was during the
Biden years. They wanted it fixed.
But, Christiane, I think the disconnect is that I think Americans wanted the border fixed, but there was never the same support for deportations.
Many of my friends on the right will suggest that we should be continuing at the same level, and I'm not going to argue the policy as much as the
politics and the messaging here, in that Americans wanted the border secure, and Trump was, I think, able to do that with executive action
quickly. The support for deportations has not been there publicly. And so, I think what you're seeing is that the president has had significant
erosion among his Hispanic support, and I think that the issue that was a significant strength for him is a little bit upside down now.
AMANPOUR: I think that's a really important distinction because in many countries, including over here, secure borders, very important political
issues, and surely that is the case in the U.S., but you're saying the deportation part of it, the ugliness on the streets, especially sometimes
against American citizens, is just, you know, a step too far. So, I hear you on that.
Finally, if they get a shellacking, as President Obama admitted he got back in 20-whatever it was, what should the Republicans do? What is the future
of the Republican Party, especially post-Trump, who's dominated the Republican Party for 10 years?
SHORT: Well, Christiane, I think there's going to be a real soul- searching. I think you've seen a rise of the populist right, and I think that there's a lot of, I think, a growing consensus that we need to get
back to those time-honored and limited-government principles that made Republican Party as successful as it was. I would add to that I think that
right now it's confusing because I think one of our strongest arguments in this cycle is that the Democrats have actually nominated candidates who fly
under the banner of Democrats Socialists of America, and I think that many of their policies pose significant threats to our country and are
wrongheaded.
But it's difficult when we, this administration, is basically having more and more record numbers of government taking over private sector companies,
pushing for price controls.
[13:25:00]
The vice president, J.D. Vance, most recently talked about expansion of entitlement programs, record spending in significant debts, a trade policy
that's supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. And so, when you're basically putting forward these policies, it's hard for us to make
the case, hey, look at how dangerous the Democrat Socialists are because, candidly, we're blurring the lines. We're not offering a clear contrast to
say here's a vision for a freer economy, for greater prosperity, and for a limited government. What this administration's been pushing in the economy
is so much government interference that, frankly, you know, it makes Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren blush.
AMANPOUR: On that note, Marc Short, thank you so much for being with us.
SHORT: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And stay with CNN because we'll be right back after the break. Thank you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Here in the U.K., Prime Minister Andy Burnham is trying to stir up a feeling of hope. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDY BURNHAM, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Today we draw a line on a decade of division. We stop doom-scrolling on posts running Britain down. And we put
the country on a new path. Britain with belief again, people with hope again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But is this a tall order? U.K. borrowing costs hit an all-time high this week, as did the price of diesel, thanks in part to America and
Israel's war on Iran. My next guest has a plan for the economy. She is the renowned economist Mariana Mazzucato, and she lays it all out in her new
book, "The Common Good Economy." She's also a professor in the economics of innovation and public value at University College of London. And she's
joining me right now. Mariana Mazzucato, welcome back to the program.
MARIANA MAZZUCATO, AUTHOR, "THE COMMON GOOD ECONOMY": Thank you so much. It's always great to talk to you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: And it couldn't be a better time to talk because it's all about the economy right now, everywhere, everywhere you look. What is going wrong
that you can tell us in sort of a nutshell, particularly, well, according to your book, about here and the United States?
MAZZUCATO: Sure. I mean, first of all, globally, you know, we are absolutely not even close to solving the problems that in 2015 every single
country, including the United States, including the United Kingdom, set out to solve, right. So, it's climate change, life below our oceans, gender
parity, no hunger, no poverty and so on.
We are currently projected to cause about 83 million excess deaths, not just deaths, excess deaths by the end of the century due to climate change.
About 4.5 billion people lack full access to essential health services. Two billion people don't even have access to clean drinking water. So, that's
the global picture.
But what you also see in the elections, both in the U.S., in Brazil on Sunday, in the U.K. right now in terms of this new prime minister setting
out his agenda, is that a lot of people also just don't feel very good about themselves. In other words, they have not been felt to feel valued.
[13:30:00]
If you think of what happened in the U.S. with Biden's economic plan, even in those red states where it was starting to have an economic effect,
people voted for Trump. We need to start asking ourselves, it's not just the economy stupid, that famous quote, it's also, are we putting people,
literally their lives, how they feel every single day, whether their kids have access to healthy, you know, sustainable lunch at school, whether
their living standards are actually increasing or they're just promises for it, whether the energy bills are going up or down, more than just a blip,
because we do have sometimes blips due to wars and so on.
The long-term trend for the last 50 years is negative in terms of how so many people feel about their own living standards. What the book says is
that this isn't by coincidence, this is by design. We have had governments that think that at best they're there to fix a market failure. That means
you are, by design, too little, too late, patching things up, and are not also investing in the fundamental capabilities we require within our
government.
So, what I put forward is a theory of the common good, kind of going back to Aristotle, where he talked about the telos, the goal, but also, given
what I just said before, the polis, the community. We need to pay much more attention when we talk about goals, whether it's inequality, whether it's
climate action, whether it's reducing the digital divide, to put those goals at the center of how all the different relationships are structured
from the beginning, not picking up the mess later.
That means capital-labor relations, public-sector and private-sector relationships, so how business actually interacts with the state in a
better way than the very problematic ways we've seen globally, but also how states work with citizens and actually listen to them and put their lives
and their voices, their lived experience, at the center of the policy design process.
AMANPOUR: So, you have traced this back at least 50 years. I want to know, because you've advised governments, including the British government, I
think the Brazilian government and others, and you just mentioned the election in Brazil, do you think that, in this case, they are on the left,
more progressive, the governments here that I've just mentioned, and you've got the democratic socialists in America, who Marc Short just referred to
with their economic plans, they seem to be trying to hear and speak about the people's issues, that it seems to be sinking in, and Marc Short himself
was admitting, this is a Republican strategist, that the Republicans have to start factoring that in, as well.
Is that coming to a tipping point right now, you know, based on political necessity, but is there a change, do you see?
MAZZUCATO: So, I don't see any one country being perfect in any way. My own work with governments, through my university, by the way, I'm not a
private consultant, we do it through kind of researchers, and we work with the governments, with the civil service in Brazil, we just worked three
years on rethinking how they use public sector procurement, state-owned enterprises, digital public infrastructure.
In the U.K., I tried, didn't work too well, with Keir Starmer's government, to help them really focus on kind of the key outcomes that you require, and
how government needs to work in an inter-ministerial way, instead of thinking of problems in this very siloed way.
In the U.S., I had the honor to help with some policies like the CHIPS Act, where Gina Raimondo, who was the secretary of commerce, what I said to her
is, I said, let's not keep making the same mistake that we made in Silicon Valley, for example, where we socialize the risks and privatize the
rewards. Everything in our smartphones that's smart and not stupid was government-financed, internet, GPS, touchscreen, Siri, I already wrote
about that back in 2013, in the entrepreneurial state, but look at where the profits went.
And that's not about kind of taking equity stakes necessarily in those companies, that's making sure that we actually think about how to make sure
that the benefits, not only of the technology, but also the rewards are truly shared, instead of what we have today, which is trillionaires that
have made that money on the back of not only tax evasion, not only in some cases labor exploitation, but also on the back of a huge amount of
taxpayer-funded public research.
So, in the CHIPS Act, we made sure that there was conditionality to make sure that, for example, the profits that are generated from a government
program, the CHIPS Act, are not used just to buy back shares, to boost stock prices, stock options and executive pay. $7 trillion have been used
by the S&P 500 companies in the last ten years just to buy back their shares. One trillion last year. So, no share buybacks was in that program.
Second, to improve working conditions and worker pay. Third, to have energy-efficient supply chains.
[13:35:00]
They then added other things, and people like Ezra Klein said that was too much, and they have this whole theory of, the abundance theory, I disagree
with that, I'm sure we don't have time right now to talk about it. The point is, any contract, any contract, should have a good symbiotic
relationship at the center. You don't need to be a socialist to talk about that. This is capitalism 101. Risks and rewards.
And unfortunately, what we've had is, again, a massive socialization of risks in every sector, pharmaceuticals, IT, energy, and privatization of
rewards. That is actually not in your Econ 101 textbooks.
AMANPOUR: OK. In our one-minute left, I want to ask you about your own, I guess, experiment, but certainly effort in your own local council here in
London, Camden Council.
MAZZUCATO: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And I'm going to read what you did. Yes, you had -- you know, you tested your approach, you helped lead the We Make Camden initiative,
and local citizens were involved. Explain, if you can, what it was, and can it be scaled up?
MAZZUCATO: Sure. Sure. So, the point is this, coming back to my first point about, we have all these goals, there's a lot of blah, blah, blah
about the goals, but we don't listen to people on the ground on how they have been disserved by how we've organized our structure. So, what we did
in Camden is we had an outcomes, mission-oriented adult social program across 10 of the poorest housing estates, and we brought the carers, the
people who had actually been providing the care, and knew that the system was failing, to the process of designing that care system.
Similarly, I just came back from the Amazon in Brazil, and there's people in the forest that know so much about how to keep the forest alive. Their
voices, their knowledge, their own innovation over the last 500 years has not been brought to the table to design the Amazon fund. And this is the
kind of stuff I really think needs to change.
It can't just be working at people. We need to work with people, especially those that really have been left behind. Sorry?
AMANPOUR: It was successful in Camden, but can it be scaled up?
MAZZUCATO: Absolutely. I mean, the point of actually looking at these local examples is that's where we can really learn how to work together in
a different way, and then we need to scale it. Of course, we can scale it. Think of every single government, whether it's Barbados, a small island
state, or the United States, 20 percent to 30 percent of the budget of the government is just buying things, whether you're buying school meals,
materials for hospitals, materials to build motorways. We currently don't buy in an outcomes-oriented way.
The reason I wrote Mission Economy and Going to the Moon, NASA, the first thing they did to get to the moon and back in order to work with 400,000
people in the private sector across many different industries was to change the design of public sector procurement away from just a cost-plus towards
an outcomes orientation. That's a huge budget, 20 percent of the United States budget. Imagine if we scaled this outcomes orientation across the
board.
AMANPOUR: I'm really glad that you've been able to explain that to us, and it's food for a lot of challenge for all the political leaders around. So,
Mariana Mazzucato, thank you so much. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: And now, to the United States and China. What did President Trump and Xi Jinping actually get from their Washington summit last week? A
two-month extension to their trade truce and a pledge to keep talking about the risks of A.I.
[13:40:00]
Joshua Cooper Ramo, former co-CEO of Henry Kissinger's consulting firm, says that leaves a huge number of issues on the table. In his new book,
"Darwin's Lock: America, China, and the Shared Future of Nations," he argues the two powers must learn to co-evolve or face what he calls co-
extinctions, as he talks to Walter Isaacson now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Joshua Ramo, welcome back to the show.
JOSHUA COOPER RAMO, AUTHOR, "DARWIN'S LOCK": Pleasure to be with you.
ISAACSON: Well, last week was a big week for China news. Just as your book comes out, President Trump met with President Xi of China in a real big
red-carpet pomp and circumstance summit. After a whole lot of discussion in the United States attacking China, it looks like Trump sort of has a --
wants to have a friendship with President Xi. Tell me your assessment of what came out of that summit.
RAMO: Look, I think on the surface, the most important thing about the summit -- and, you know, this is a longtime student of history and Cold War
history, it was really the first time you saw the two nations meeting in a sense as equals. And, by the way, if you look at the Chinese social media
coverage that's happened since the summit, almost all of the focus has not been on the content of the meeting but has been on that, on that sense that
these were two equal powers that were meeting.
So, from a Chinese perspective, this was a historic turning point because, obviously, for years, the scope of the United States versus China inside
China was something of meaningful debate. But that sense of arrival, that sense of ending, you know, what the Chinese have called 100 years of
humiliation that began with the opium wars back in the 1850s, was very much the subtext of how this was portrayed on the China side.
On the U.S. side, look, it was a very significant moment in the sense that I think we've arrived at a point where both nations can hurt each other.
And it doesn't mean that we've figured out a framework of how we're going to live together. That's a lot about what my book is about and trying to
think through that process. But Trump's own lived experience of the last 18 months has been trying to do things to damage China and to discover that
the result was hurting the United States, which, by the way, is a classic Chinese strategic position to be in, where when somebody attacks you, they
hurt themselves.
ISAACSON: Well, you talk about something very historic. And it's certainly true that for most centuries in the past millennium, China has been a
dominant economy in this world. For the past century, they haven't. But now for the first time, they met with the United States as equals, you say.
Tell me how that happened. What caused over the past 10 years China now to feel that it was equal to the United States?
RAMO: Yes, it's not just the last 10 years. It's been everything that's happened since this, you know, period of 1979 began, what the Chinese call
reform and opening, which is this process that's just transformed everything about China.
You know, the Chinese like to summarize the way that they look at the world in this kind of short phrases. One of these about the Chinese approach to
life generally is that what's happening in the larger environment determines what you yourself do. So, as Westerners, we tend to be very
focused on, you know, a particular target, you know, get rid of the missiles or get rid of Saddam or something. The Chinese always start with
the question, kind of what is the nature of the age that you're living in? And there's been a shift in the nature of the age.
So, you know, Mao famously said the age he was living in was one of what he called a zhen zheng yu gu ming, which means war and revolution. And so,
everything was about constant revolution. Deng's big insight in 1979 was to say that there were going to be no major power wars, that China was in a
period of what he called hu ping yu fa zhang (ph), which means peace and development.
When Xi came into office, he said the world is going through a period of unprecedented change, a period of in a sense of great collapse and great
construction at the same time. So, the Chinese have gauged that strategic environment and said that it's a period of incredible opportunity for them.
And they've pivoted accordingly. The thing they realized that was so important, and it's really been the lesson of the last 150 years of Chinese
history, is if you're technologically behind, you have no choice. You're not going to be able to survive.
And so, that intense focus on technological development is what has driven China internally, really since the opium wars. The great lesson of that
historic accident in their mind was that they were not technologically at the same level as Great Britain. And now, what they've done is worked very
hard to get to a point where they feel at least they're getting close to technological parity. And that's what gives them the great confidence that
shows up in manufacturing. It shows up in their exports and in the structure of their domestic political system.
ISAACSON: Well, the great insight in your book, "Darwin's Lock," is that when we're in a parody like this at a time of great conflict and time of
great challenges, such as artificial intelligence and climate, that the notion of pure competition, of just trying to outright beat the other
nation as zero when is not really a smart path forward or even the way evolutionary path forward.
Instead, it's a co-evolution, a way that we would have to, in some ways, cooperate as well as compete in order to create a new age. How does that
fit in with what's happening right now?
[13:45:00]
RAMO: Yes, I think it's -- I mean, look, the general mindset of most people dealing with U.S.-China relations, particularly on the U.S. side, is
this is a new Cold War, that it's kind of this, you know, you live, I die, zero-sum competition kind of mentality. And the reality is what we face is
something that's much more dangerous than a Cold War. And the choice is not between who wins, whether it's the United States or China.
It's between co-evolution and co-extinction. And those are ideas that come right out of biology. The idea of co-evolution is if you think about in the
rainforest, the temperature goes up. So, a flower grows longer petals to protect its stamen. A bird maybe grows a longer beak so that it can feed
better. They each get more fit for the changed environment.
Neither loses their innate specificity, but they find a way to cooperate based on the changes that are happening around them. And that happens over
and over again in evolution. It happens in technological evolution. It's what happens with evolution between your smartphone and apps, for instance,
the kind of co-evolution. It happens today in artificial intelligence, where people are able to cooperate and learn and change with each other as
they develop.
And honestly, the other choice, which you do see in nature, is this thing called co-extinction, where species make choices that optimize their short-
term interest, but ultimately doom both of them. And so, you know, when I started writing this book, I knew about the idea of co-evolution. I thought
co-extinction was extinction, really a possibility. But we live in a moment, as you know, where people are running around talking about a real
extinction risk. And that's the reason we've got to reframe our thinking. The challenge for the years in China, it's like two guys wrestling inside a
house that's on fire, and they need to stop wrestling and deal with the house that's on fire.
ISAACSON: When you talk about understanding the relationship strategically, it gets back to somebody you worked for maybe a couple of
decades, I guess. Dr. Henry Kissinger, to what extent does Dr. Kissinger's view of the complexity of relationships inform what you're talking about
now? And to what extent have we lost that sense of nuance?
RAMO: Yes. I think there's a couple of aspects about Dr. Kissinger's view, and you know this very well, having written a book about him. So, he always
approached the problem of international relations with a historian's mindset, which allowed him to take a little bit of a step back and see the
larger patterns in history. And it also made him deeply curious about his interlocutors. Henry was obsessed with the psychology of anybody that we
were dealing with, whether it was on a commercial basis or on a political basis.
And so, one thing he had was a tremendous openness and curiosity to thinking about a place like China in very different ways than most
Westerners do. You know, I've lived and worked now in China for 25 years, and you find that people basically fall into two categories. There's people
who show up who are Westerners, and they're just like, look, this is who I am. I'm going to look at the world as a Westerner, and, you know, Chinese
are just going to have to take it. And then there are people who show up and are like, yes, there's maybe something interesting in this 2,500-year-
old society. Maybe I can learn something from it.
So, I think a first instinct of kind of Kissingerianism is that ability to stop and listen long enough to what you're hearing so that you yourself can
be understood. The second major insight I think of Henry's is Henry would often say to me, you know, Joshua, the great problem with your generation
is you have no experience of tragedy. And that was a profound statement. And I think, unfortunately, historically, probably a kind of warning that
people who have not experienced tragedy are likely to repeat the errors that get you there. The Chinese, because of the Cultural Revolution,
because of the last 150 years of Chinese history, have a very deep feeling for the way that things can go off the rails. And you don't find that so
much in the U.S.
So, I would say one thing that has certainly informed the approach I've taken is this view. Not only do we need to be curious about the other side,
not only do we need to be open and not convinced that our way is the only way, but that the consequences for misjudging it really are the kind of
tragedy that must be avoided.
ISAACSON: How has the advent of artificial intelligence changed the game here?
RAMO: Yes, it's a radical shift, obviously, because it changes everything. But I think particularly from the Chinese perspective, they've been able to
develop, I think, in a way that has even surprised them to some degree, a fascinating and different and efficient A.I. stack. It's a space I know
very well just from a commercial perspective. It's a space we've been looking at for a very long time.
And, you know, it's been amazing to the U.S. side. People would tell you in the fall of 23 that the Chinese were 10 years away from a model. Today
we've got 11 frontier labs in the world. Seven of them are in China. The intensity and the drive of innovation on the Chinese side has changed
things a great deal. And this Chinese sense that they can't be left behind has also done a couple things. It has driven a remarkable energy in the
domestic ecosystem.
And so, the U.S. attempts to kind of strangle the Chinese development have, in fact, produced a very rapid advance on any number of fronts on the
complete stack. But the second thing that's happened is China has begun to find a path forward in A.I., and particularly as you start thinking about
AGI or ASI, that looks different from the United States. And one thing you see a great deal in China is very deep discussion about that.
[13:50:00]
And also, a lot of focus on safety. The safety culture inside China and the focus on safety of these A.I. systems is quite different than what you see
in the U.S.
ISAACSON: Well, one of the arguments against slowing down or putting guardrails on A.I. in the United States has always been, and it's certainly
right the past few weeks been, hey, China's going to do it if we don't, that we're in a race and whoever gets there first or ever triumphs first
wins and it increases their advantage. First of all, does that make sense to you? And secondly, how does that fit into an idea of co-evolution?
RAMO: Yes, you know, I think that this race analogy, which has kind of been consistently used, I mean, this fails almost every test of what a race
should be, right? It's not clear what the finish line is and not clear what it looks like to win. It's not clear what the rules are. And so, that kind
of approach where you just kind of justify endless rapid development on the theory that you've got to beat the other guy fails both the test of, you
know, does this match the metaphor and the reality of the situation, which is every time the U.S. has tried to slow the Chinese down in the last, you
know, 36 months, it's actually accelerated the Chinese progress.
So, just from American national security perspective and national interest perspective, framing this as a race is not necessarily the safest path and
it's maybe not the path that benefits the U.S. the most. The right way to think about this probably to use a biological metaphor is as a garden. Each
side is cultivating and growing its own garden. There are probably things that each side can learn for the other.
I mean, I think one of the most significant examples of a kind of co- evolutionary moment in the last few weeks was this Hugging Face incident where you had a U.S. closed lab model, the OpenAI model almost wipe out an
American company that had to save itself by using a Chinese open weight model. And so, that shows you the benefit of actually having a very diverse
ecosystem.
So, I think if you could unhinge yourself from that race metaphor and kind of instead say, is this a cooperative way to develop a framework for both
sides? Is there a cooperative way? That's a path forward I think the Chinese would --
ISAACSON: Well, wait, wait. How do you get to a cooperative way? Do you have to have a constant working group that says, OK, Americans and Chinese,
we're going to work together just as we kind of did during the cold war on nuclear weapons?
RAMO: That's right. You need a complete reset in your thinking and understand that the shared dangers, you know, if what the U.S. is afraid of
and what the Chinese are afraid of are the same thing and not each other, that then permits you to have a very different kind of structural approach
to it. As long as the U.S. frames this as a race condition and says, this is where we're going and like, we're going to do everything we can to slow
you down, it makes it very hard for the Chinese to sit down and do that. And so, the challenge is how can you build a structure, which is, this is
what diplomacy is for, that allows the two sides to interact with one another, to learn from one another, to put some guardrails in place.
Today, those discussions are very difficult because the U.S. side is on the one hand trying to strangle essentially the Chinese A.I. development on the
other side saying, hey, will you cooperate with us on guardrails? It's just a framework that's very unlikely to be successful.
ISAACSON: China does not want a nuclear Iran and yet China is helping Iran. Explain that to me and what should we be doing about that?
RAMO: Yes. So, I think -- you know, one of the examples I give in my book about a place where the U.S. and China should be working together is on
nuclear proliferation. China does not want to live in a world of 30 nuclear weapons states. They don't want a nuclear South Korea, they don't want a
nuclear Japan and the United States does not want to live in a world of 30 nuclear weapons states.
The important thing to understand about, you know, generally framing U.S.- China relations is the Chinese do start with this kind of high-level question. What's the nature of the relationship? Where is this going? And
their perception is that the United States is doing everything it can to stop China from becoming modern, prosperous and secure.
And when they have that view of the world, which you can argue whether or not that's correct, it makes it very difficult then to say why cooperate on
any of these subsidiary things. So, there's certainly been many opportunities over the last decade and a half in particular on Iran, on
nuclear weapons proliferation for the United States to approach China. The Chinese have actually made a number of overtures saying, is there a way for
us to develop a collective approach on that?
The U.S. has not taken that path and so it's left the Chinese in a position where they have to do what they think is necessary to be secure, which
includes increasing their own nuclear capacity, building an anti-ballistic missile system and finding allies in parts of the world where they can to
be helpful.
I think by the way, Walter, it is -- what you don't know, I think none of us really know is kind of what does the world look like as you begin to
have more and more proliferation, right? If Iran gets closest and the administration maybe is encouraging Saudi Arabia to move closer, what does
that world look like? And so, it's an unusual opportunity where the U.S. and Chinese interests are so closely aligned that there's a great
opportunity for successful diplomacy here.
In the Cold War, there was this moment you may recall when the South Africans developed nuclear weapons and this famous Kalahari moment and the
Soviets discovered it early. They came to the U.S. and said, hey, this is going on, we need to stop this. And the U.S. and the Soviets worked
together to reverse proliferate South Africa. That seems to be a very clear-eyed view of what a shared danger looks like that so far has not
emerged between the U.S. and China.
[13:55:00]
Joshua Ramo, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
RAMO: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, it survived great fires, vicious disease and attacks from the Ottoman Empire. I'm talking about this invincible grape
vine in Maribor, Slovenia. Planted in the 16th century, it's been creeping along the same wall for nearly half a millennium, making it the oldest in
the world. Remarkably, the vine still bears fruit and locals just celebrated another successful harvest where each grape was picked by hand
and then all of it was turned into wine. The longevity of this vine is miraculous, mysterious and humbling too, as its carer says, this vine
remembers a lot of things that we weren't even here to see.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episodes shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always
catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
