Speaker 1Shaq here. What's it like to buy a car from Carvana 100% online and get it delivered to your door? Let me tell you. Your car is here, Mr. Shaq. Thank you, Mr. Carvana guy. Can't wait to take it for a spin. Only the best for you, Mr. Shaq. Hey, have you always been so big, tall, and handsome? Not always. I was 6'10 once. Seven days to love it or return it, Mr. Shaq. Not that I would. You never do. No, I never do. So buy your car today on Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. See our seven-day return policy at carvana.com.
Speaker 2The stakes couldn't be higher. Join CNN's trusted journalists for Election Night in America. Coverage starts November 3rd at 5 on CNN or streaming live with an all-access subscription. Subscribe at cnn.com slash all access.
Speaker 3Hello, everyone, and welcome to I'm On Board. Here's what's coming up. A quarter century later, America and the world remember September 11th. Nicholas Burns, U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, joins me with reflections on that dark day and just how it changed everything. Then, nearly 1,000 years after it left, the bio-tapestry is back on British soil. I speak to Lord Peter Ricketts, the U.K.'s special envoy who helped pull off the impossible.
Speaker 4Plus, I think United States consumers are going to be hurt. I think United States businesses, that do business with Canada, are going to be hurt.
Speaker 3David Cohen, the U.S. ambassador to Canada under Biden, tells Walter Isaacson that Trump's tariffs may push Ottawa into the arms of Beijing. I'm David Cohen, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, under Biden, tells Walter Isaacson that Trump's tariffs may push Ottawa into the arms of Beijing. Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Twenty-five years ago this week, America and the world changed forever. The 9-11 attacks shocked people everywhere and prompted an outpouring of global sympathy for the United States, with NATO for the first and only time in its history, invoking Article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all. Allies rushed to America's side, and hundreds of their soldiers gave their lives in the wars in Afghanistan and later Iraq. Today, America's standing, though, appears very different. Allies now view the U.S. with suspicion, some distrust, and workarounds, as it repeatedly questions, as the United States repeatedly questions, defending NATO allies and as it engages in a forever war with Iran. So how? So how did things get to this place, and is there any way back towards global leadership for the United States? Nicholas Burns has held many senior positions within the U.S. government, most recently as ambassador to China. On September 11, 2001, he was America's ambassador to NATO, when Article 5 was first invoked, and he's joining me now. Nicholas Burns, Ambassador, welcome to the program.
Speaker 5Thank you, Christiane. Christiane, thank you.
Speaker 3I guess I'm just going to say that I'm a big fan of NATO. And I'm going to ask you, what do you think now? You're kind of forced to contend with that day 25 years ago. What's flashing across your view and through your mind?
Speaker 5Well, Christiane, I think the fundamental lesson that I learned on 9-11 in terms of America's role in the world is we need friends and allies in the world. I was a very new ambassador. I'd only been there 12 days on September 11, 2001. And you'll remember this. We were hit very hard. Nearly 3,000 people dead in the United States, people from 90 countries, by the way. And my phone, I couldn't reach the White House State Department and the Pentagon, but my phone started to ring. The Canadian ambassador, David Wright, the Danish ambassador, the Norwegian ambassador, the Iceland ambassador. And they all said, we're with you, and we'll go into Afghanistan with you if necessary, and we'll invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty and attack on one is an attack on all. And by the next day, we're going to be in Afghanistan with you. And by the next day, every ally had agreed. It was a shot in the arm to our country that had been shattered by this catastrophic attack. And in a conversation with Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security Advisor, she said to me, she said, it's good to have friends in the world. And that was our conversation on the 12th of September, the next day. So, Christiane, as I reflect on that day, thank goodness that America had allies that day that would help us, that would step in. And some of them, of course, in very dangerous missions in Afghanistan, with lots of casualties. And I've thought about that a lot, especially in the last couple of months and weeks and days. The United States is powerful, but we need to be respectful of our allies and treat them with respect and work with them and listen to them because we need them.
Speaker 3I know, and it's just so incredible to hear your memories. You were right there when Article 5 was invoked. And if you remember, I'm going to read this, the French newspaper Le Monde declared, nous sommes tous Américains, we're all Americans at this time. And you fast forward to today and nothing could be further from the truth, not because the allies don't want to be, but because this administration seems to be pushing them back. Did you ever think that this would be a possibility somewhere in the history of transatlantic relations?
Speaker 5No, I did not, Christiane. I always assumed. I always assumed that through thick and thin, the United States, every president would realize that the fact that we have 31 allies in NATO, the fact that we have in East Asia, allies in Japan and South Korea and the Philippines, in Thailand and in Australia, this is the great difference between the United States and China, the United States and Russia. They have neighbors that fear both countries. We have had neighbors, all democracies who believe essentially what we believe about the world. And for President Trump to cut ties with the NATO allies, to threaten to invade Denmark, Greenland, to threaten that Canada should be the 51st state and to be disrespectful to the people of Canada. Over the weekend, Christiane, you saw what I saw, a map put out by President Trump on his social media account, claiming Iceland as a NATO ally, as well as Greenland, as well as Mexico as some kind of future territory of the United States. This is madness. It makes no sense for the United States. And you know and I know that if you poll the American people, 99.9% would say we want to be respectful of these countries. We're not trying to acquire them in some kind of 18th century, 19th century imperialist way. So I think it's a very sad commentary. And I hope very much that the next president, Republican or Democrat, can reverse this strategy.
Speaker 3So do you think. Do you think that it can? Is this a blip in the history of, let's say, the American presidency and in the history of American relations with the rest of the world? Or, as some say, even, you know, Prime Minister Carney, who's the target of a lot of this outpouring from President Trump, he said in Davos, as you heard at the beginning of the year, this is not a transition. This is a rupture. And talked about how, you know, middle powers and non-superpowers had to figure out the workaround, including U.S.
Speaker 5allies. Well, you know, I've read the Carney speech closely. It was in many ways a brilliant speech, brilliantly delivered. I hope and I think probably he hopes that this does not come to pass, that there's some kind of permanent break between the United States and especially its Democratic allies in NATO and in East Asia. And if you look at the public opinion polls here in the United States, very strong support by the American. And if you look at the Republican public for NATO, if you look at the Republican committee chairs in the Senate, in the House, there's not a single one of them that doesn't believe that NATO remains a great and enduring alliance for the United States. So I do think it's about leadership. Obviously, much changes in foreign policy. Some of these changes might be permanent, but I don't believe so on NATO, on alliances, particularly as Americans focus on the threat from Putin in Europe. To impose authoritarianism and to try to defeat Ukraine and the threat from China. And as you know, Christian, I was ambassador there for President Biden. These are major challenges. And so we've got to group together, rally together to live in peace with these countries, but not to be dominated by them and to stand up for our democratic values.
Speaker 3Yeah, and you've been ambassador and held senior positions under under both both administrations from both countries. Right. So this is about, you know, the institutional American system and its foreign policy and all other policies. You just mentioned Putin. So I want to ask you, you see, as we've just been talking about Trump kind of disrespecting and threatening the idea of the NATO alliance and whether or not he had come to the aid of other NATO nations if they were attacked. And then suddenly you see Putin definitely emboldened and Europe and NATO countries warning. That he might try something on in Europe. But Trump, presumably it was him who sent his CIA director to Putin or other to his intelligence officials to tell him, don't don't misread, don't misunderstand what's coming from the United States. President Trump is committed. to NATO. Don't try anything. So that's kind of my answer to what do you think the effect Trump's public stance about NATO has had?
Speaker 5I think it's weakened deterrence by the NATO allies. I mean, we learned, Chris John, throughout the Cold War, the way to keep the peace, and we have to have peace in the global power relationship with Russia, is to be strong and is to send a message directly to President Putin that if he ever attempted to invade Estonia or Latvia or Lithuania or Poland or Romania, I'm just thinking of five close neighbors to Russia, all NATO allies, the United States and other countries would react and defend them. That's the way to stop Putin. And as you know, I was just in Norway over the last four days. They're very concerned by Russians cutting cables in the Baltic Sea and North Sea, by these drones, penetrating the territory of NATO allies. And I think that all the publics, as well as the governments of these allies, are waiting for President Trump to speak clearly and firmly that we're in that NATO camp. We're with democracies, and we're not with Putin at all. And frankly, when you send an American negotiating delegation, as the President did this week, and where they say in public that it's quite an honor to meet President Putin, it's one of the incredible experiences of their lives, that is exactly the wrong message to send to Vladimir Putin. So I hope there's going to be some kind of conversion here in Washington and a rethink that we've got to be much stronger and purposeful on Ukraine's side of these negotiations rather than the Russia side and send the right message on NATO.
Speaker 3And do you think, as many have sort of come to the, you know, conclusion over the years since 9-11, that perhaps the United States overreacted, that the Afghan war was a just war, that the U.S. was trying to defeat the enemy that had attacked the homeland, and it was doing so with all its allies. But then came Iraq. And now, fast forward to this apparently new forever war of choice against Iran, which is not going anywhere good for the United States, as far as we can see right now. Do you think, when you look back, that policy, this so-called nebulous war on terror and all that it entailed, was an overreaction?
Speaker 5Christian, I'd say this, and obviously I've thought about this a lot. I talked to my class about this this morning here at Harvard Kennedy School. We had to go into Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001. We'd been hit strategically very hard, and too many people had died in our country. We had to go after Osama bin Laden. And it's interesting to look back. Russia and China supported the U.S. in the first place. And we had to go after them. But the United States supported the United States going into Afghanistan. The whole world supported us. So I think that was a just intervention by the United States. I think the mistake we made was no one ever felt in 2001 or 2002 in our government that we'd be there for 20 years. We stayed a long time, kind of lost a sense of the clear mission. But the big mistake, and I say this in retrospect, 24-7 hindsight was going into Iraq in 2003. I have to tell you, as ambassador to NATO at that time, I supported the war. I supported the intervention. I regret that now. I think it was the wrong decision to go in and certainly the wrong decision to get caught in the quicksand, if you will, of Iraq and to stay for 11 years and so many people killed. So one of the hardest things in global politics, and you know this well from your career as a reporter, when do we intervene and when do we not? And sometimes the right answer is to intervene. Our mutual friend, Madeleine Albright, told us here at Harvard when she visited some years ago, the greatest regret she had is we did not intervene in Rwanda when a million people were killed in just a few months' time in 1994. So getting this right is, I think, one of the most complex and difficult decisions that leaders make. Clearly, we were right about Afghanistan. I think in retrospect, I was wrong and our government was wrong to go into Iraq the way we did. You've also, you talk about
Speaker 3Madeleine Albright, and of course, I do remember that and the horror of the omission, you know, of not intervening. And it caused nearly a million deaths, as you say, in such, such a quick time. But then you also have talked about the lack of diplomacy and diplomats and a real sort of, you know, sort of degrading of the idea of diplomacy. And so now, 25 years later, we're in the first couple of years of the war. And I think it's a very, very important moment in the history of the Trump administration. And it appears that a lot of the professionals are sidelined, either out of the picture or do not have sway. And I wonder what you think, what effect that's happening now. You mentioned briefly the, you know, personal friends and colleagues and families who Trump tasks with some very important diplomacy. But over Iran, I mean, did nobody tell the president, for instance, what might happen with a war of choice against Iran? What could lead? And what's the danger of careening into these wars with no fixed exit plan or strategy?
Speaker 5Christian, I think one of the greatest mistakes President Trump has made is that he has really neglected, in fact, even cast aside our career diplomats in the United States Foreign Service. You know, many of these people very well. There was no career diplomat in the room with Mr. Witkoff and Jared Kushner. When they had that final conversation with the Iranian foreign minister before the war began on February 28th. We have plenty of people in our system who speak Farsi, speak Persian, who understand the country, who've dealt with the Iranians. They've been sidelined. No career diplomats in the room. When they go in to meet Witkoff and Kushner, President Putin in Moscow. This is diplomatic malpractice, basically to just cast away your Foreign Service officers. Many of them fired. Many of our best people just pushed aside and told to retire and to rely on, frankly, people who don't have the experience. They don't speak the language. They don't understand the great power aspects of this. It's an own goal for the United States. And I have to hope that the next president and next secretary of state of either party after 2028 are going to right the ship and bring back our career diplomats and our career senior military officers. So many of whom have been fired. This is not smart. It's not the way to go forward for a great country like ours.
Speaker 3And some people would say, certainly critics of this administration, would say that Osama bin Laden's main objective in 2011, and as he kept over the years trying to attack the United States, was to attack America's position in the world, its leadership position, to upend that post-war structure. And now, 20 years later. People are saying, well, actually, it's the current administration that is kind of giving away America's superpower in the ways that you've just described, and giving it perhaps to China. And you have been ambassador to China, as you mentioned in the early part of the interview. And I just wondered whether you think this is a moment where the relative strength of these, you know, the superpower and the wannabe superpower are at a sort of a tipping point.
Speaker 5Well, I've thought about this a lot, as you can imagine, and I'm worried. I'm worried that the United States is giving the impression that we, well, we've broken the bonds of trust with our allies, that in the tariff regime, we place tariffs on nearly every country in the world, some of our best allies and partners in the world. We're out of the Global Climate Change Conference. We're going in a very unilateral direction. It allows Xi Jinping to stand up and say, "I'm the same. I'm the same." It allows Xi Jinping to stand up and say, "I'm the same." I'm the stable leader. I believe in the rule of law. This is all cynical, by the way, on the part of the Chinese, but this is what they say. And we're not going to start trade wars with other countries, et cetera. And so I do think we're giving not just a pass to the Chinese, we're giving them a pedestal to stand on, that they're the country concerned about the global order, and look at that renegade country to the United States. We've got to change course here. And if we don't, I do think you'll see China vault ahead of the United States in many ways. The latest PEW, P-E-W, Global Public Opinion Poll, shows for the first time that publics in allied countries, like Australia, France, Germany, Italy, now have greater faith in China to be a global leader than the United States. How sad is that? So I do think this battle of ideas for the hearts and minds of people around the world trending in China's favor, it pains me to say that, and we Americans, I think, are better than that, and need a government that can be more respectful and open to the democratic countries and everyone else
Speaker 3around the world. And just finally, as a U.S. ambassador to China, what would you advise the current president if you were in the room when he met President Xi of China, which is going to happen at the summit in Washington on, you know, on the 24th of September?
Speaker 5My advice would be we've got to stand by Taiwan. The president should go ahead with the arms sale package that he has been delaying since January of this year, that we should speak up for Japan, our ally. China's trying to intimidate Japan. The Philippines, China's trying to intimidate the Philippines in the South China Sea. Speak up for our allies. Tell the Chinese that we're going to support them. At the same time, you know, obviously complain to the Chinese about their unfair trading practices. I think, you know, you need to show some strength. In the relationship with China, and of course, we want to live peacefully with China. We want to go back to working, we should, on climate change with China. But I think the president has been too soft on both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin. And this is hurting the United States. And our allies are watching. And I think they're very worried about the direction we're heading in.
Speaker 3Ambassador Nicholas Burns, thank you for this perspective 25 years after 9-11. Thank you. And stay with CNN. We'll be right back. We'll be right back after the break.
Speaker 1Shaq here. Let me tell you. Shaq. Thank you, Mr. Carvana guy. Shaq. Not always. I was 6'10 once. Shaq. Not that I would. You never do. No, I never do. So buy your car today.
Speaker 6On Carvana. Hi, I'm Ben Mankiewicz, and this one's special. Stanley Kubrick was a hero to so many filmmakers and artists, it's tough to overstate his influence. We're thrilled to go behind the camera with some of his closest friends and collaborators to examine his legacy. TCM and Criterion present The Plot Thickens, Stanley. Hosted by me, Ben Mankiewicz. Featuring an exclusive newly released audio interview with Stanley. Available now. Available now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3Really nice. Next to an act of international diplomacy nearly 1,000 years in the making. This week, the Bayeux tapestry will go on public display here in Britain for the very first time in centuries. After the French president, Emmanuel Macron, agreed to a historic loan. It is a remarkable moment and a popular one. It is to view the tapestry at the British Museum, sold out almost immediately they went on sale. The artwork itself is astonishing, depicting the 1066 Norman conquest of Britain in vivid, colorful detail. Amongst those tasked with making this moment a reality was Lord Peter Ricketts, who served as UK National Security Advisor, as ambassador to France, and he is now the UK government's special envoy for the historic loan of the Bayeux tapestry. And he's joining me now. Lord Ricketts, welcome to the program. I was lucky enough to see it. I ran into you there at the British Museum earlier this week. And I didn't get to ask you enough about the difficulty of the negotiation. Can you walk us through how long it took? What were the pitfalls? What were the obstacles, if any? How you did it?
Speaker 7Christian, thank you for having me. It is a most wonderful opportunity to see this 950-year-old, embroidered, actually, not tapestry. The initiative came from French President Emmanuel Macron, who said at a summit meeting with Theresa May, the Prime Minister here, in 2018, that his objective was that we should have the tapestry on loan. I think the particular reason for that was that the Bayeux Museum was closing, where it's been on display for many, many years, for a refurbishment, rebuild, and otherwise it was going to go into storage. And I think Macron understood that this artwork, this object, tells the foundational story of England, in a way. 1066 is the date which every schoolchild here knows. It has a special magic. It has a real impact. And he understood that. And so 2018 was the start of the story. Then there was COVID. Then we went through a rather bad patch of relations with France over Brexit and all the difficulties of that. And so it was only about 2024 or something that the momentum picked up again. And plans really began to be made. And the problems, of course, are practical problems. When the decision of principle is taken, then it's a question of getting this object to the UK and displaying it safely. It is fragile. It's very large. It's 70 metres long. It needs careful climate control and, in particular, the minimum possible vibration so that the threads aren't detached. And so we had to solve problems of transport and of then designing an exhibition in London, which met very tight parameters. To ensure this extraordinary survival from the 11th century is safe and sound here and goes back safe and sound to France at the end of the show.
Speaker 3Yeah, and we were looking at beautiful, beautiful images of the various points in the transfer. And it has been beautifully displayed at the British Museum, complete with an animated explanation that's on the wall as we look down at the tapestry, which, as you say, is embroidery.
Speaker 7And this is Most Extraordinary Objects. It's a kind of comic strip straight out of the 11th century. It talks directly to children. It's vivid. It's full of colour and movement and detail. It really is a window onto another world. And therefore, it has a special magic, also extremely well adapted for social media. So, as you've seen, it's flooding social media with memes of every possible description. And therefore, it's going to be a sensational show, a real blockbuster.
Speaker 3Yes, indeed. And actually, just watching it. and seeing the colours and the clarity, obviously, and the state of health that actually the tapestry is in, you just can't believe that it's, you know, as you said, 950 years old. How did it stay so pristine and so almost, you know, it doesn't look like it's had a single, you know, tear in it. But I know there have been some repairs and some restorations.
Speaker 7Yes, it's a fairly lived-in object. I mean, the answer, I think, is that for most of the time, it was in a box in Bayeux Cathedral. It was taken out once a year and put on display for a saint's day and then put away again. So, for many centuries, it didn't really see the light of day, which has been crucial because as an embroidery, it would have easily faded. Then, from the 19th century, it's been on display and probably hasn't been all that well looked after. But it is a pretty resilient thing. And so, it's still got. As you say, the fine detail, one of the great stars of the show for me is the showcase because we designed a very high-tech showcase. So, it's safe, it's protected, it's climate-controlled, but you can get up really close to it. And because it's lying flat, you can lean over it and see the very fine detail in all the fabric, all the color and everything that they put in. The daily life, as well as the scenes of battle, the scenes of diplomacy, it really is all life is there. And that's why I think it's going to really absorb people's attention. It pays to have done some homework before you went. I'm sure you did, Christiane, like I did, to understand a bit of what's going on there. There are graphics in the museum which help with that as well. But no, it's an object that speaks very directly to people.
Speaker 3And it's really moving. As you say, it's a comic strip. When I first saw it, it was in Bayeux. And the director who showed me around said it was the first animated history, like a comic strip, as you say. And it's true. And it's really, I guess, accessible and compelling for all ages. And the beauty is just a thing of true magnificence. The question is, who did it? Was it one? We understand it was women. Was it one woman? Was it a team of women? How long did it take? Who ordered it? Whose perspective is it made from?
Speaker 7I mean, all good questions. And the scholars, I think, have discussed that over many years. But what it was made for is relatively easy. There's one man who comes out as, you know, always being in the right place, always on the right side, right alongside William the Conqueror. And that's a guy called Bishop Odo, who I think was a brother-in-law, who came across on the conquest. And then he was made bishop of Bayeux Cathedral. So no surprise. This object was probably made in some sort of tribute to Bishop Odo and went to his cathedral and restored there. And the scholars think that it was probably done by women. Canterbury in the years quite soon after 1066. Why? Because there are images on the tapestry which coincide very much with manuscripts that are still in the library of St. Augustine's Abbey in Canterbury. So that's what it looks like and it was sort of noble women of that period who were embroiderers. There must have been a lot of them because you know the four million threads or something in the tapestry it would have taken several years but seems to have been done by you know the end of the 1060 so quite soon after the events the people who were embroidering it would have lived through the events that are depicted on the tapestry. Yeah which
Speaker 3makes it even even more special. I'm going to bring up one image that we have into Alia we have so many but just I want to ask you about something that's come up as a real talking point and that is King Harold legend has it that he was killed with an arrow through the eye. That's what we learned at school when we learned 1066. And now there is a lot of doubt about that. So there is this image that we're seeing and it looks like there is the king pulling an arrow out of his eye and then there's an image that also looks like the king but he's being hacked by a Norman soldier on that horse with his sword. So which is it do you think and why the controversy over that?
Speaker 7We're all setting ourselves up as historians of the 11th century here aren't we? And the what the experts think is that that arrow was probably added a lot later. It probably wasn't on the tapestry and in the Chronicles I don't think anybody speaks about Harold being killed with an arrow in his eye. So I think the best opinion I've heard is that probably it's the man being hacked down one scene further on and the myth has grown up around the figure who's supposed to have an arrow in his eye. But as you can see when you look at the images this is not a rose-tinted historical portrait. These you know the graphic details of war and suffering and violence are there as well you know as the homely scenes of cooking and eating you know in the houses. So it's you know very very graphic but the apparently he didn't have the arrow in the eye as far as people can tell. However it's still a good story.
Speaker 3So let me bring it's a good story let me bring up another specific picture that we have to your point that there was a lot of the horror of war obviously and it's been brilliantly depicted as well in full color and full detail. So there's one where there's a woman who's fleeing with her child and her house is being burned down or was about to be burned down by the Norman soldiers as we can see here. She's one of only about six women depicted in this entire 70 meter tapestry and some believe that this is really one of the most moving one of the most poignant. Some have said that they feel that the look even on the Norman soldiers face has been depicted as as one of sorrow or regret they don't look you know avaricious or rapacious about it although there are scenes of rape elsewhere. The project curator says this woman's experience is the experience of the every woman if you will. The experience that a lot of English women including the English women who probably made the tapestry would have lived through and would have experienced. What did you make of that scene?
Speaker 7It's a very harrowing scene indeed and it reminds that this was war this was brutal war in which civilians were caught up obviously women and children were killed were raped houses were burnt villages were burned. We know that the Normans went through England pretty brutally in the years after the conquest to subdue the Anglo-Saxons you know it was a very very tough period and the tapestry doesn't shy away from that. So yeah it's one of them one of the most poignant and difficult pictures to see actually and because you know this is you know violence against women and children in the course of a brutal war and that is on the face of the tapestry as you say I think there are three from noble women on the whole tapestry otherwise it is men but the women were suffering as well and the children and it doesn't forget that.
Speaker 3Let me fast forward to today because I explained that you've been the National Security Adviser you've been UK ambassador to France and you've been a pretty strong voice commenting about Russia's war on Ukraine. Recently one of the senior Pentagon officials Elbridge Colby has said that Europe quote must not slack in their military backing for Ukraine. How did you take those comments?
Speaker 7It was wonderful to listen to my good friend Nick Byrne speaking to you just before Christiane and I agreed very much with what he said. We don't need any encouragement from anyone in Washington to understand that we have got to spend more in Europe because of the threat from Putin because of the urgent need to support Ukraine and it is happening it's been happening for the last decade thanks largely to Putin but also with a lot of pushing from first Trump first regime and now second second presidency so UK European defense spending is rising not enough in my view not fast enough and not far enough but absolutely I mean succession of British Prime Ministers and my goodness we've had a lot of British Prime Ministers six in the last seven or eight years they've all been absolutely staunch in support for Ukraine and Andy Byrne and the new Prime Minister is carrying on with that but we do need to rebuild our arms industry to rebuild our armed forces and for that we need time so I think we're all hoping over here that this forced posture review going on in the Pentagon about the scale of American forces in Europe will not move so fast that it catches a short before we can rebuild some of the capacity we need in order to be able to take more of the strain here but I think there's a political consensus here that we do need to take more
Speaker 3of the strain. And I just want to take you back to the tapestry there was this image of Haley's comment apparently the first ever recorded image of Haley's comment it was quite incredible to see I had never clocked that before.
Speaker 7Yeah and it did indeed pass over England in 1066 so you know this was another lived experience and right next to it is Harold is by then King and he's got a very you know sad worried look on his face as his courtiers telling that Halley's comet has been seen in the sky because comets were not good news for Kings in the 11th century and it portends disaster and underneath that image are the sort of phantom ships so it's almost like a nightmare of an invading fleet coming over which then happens later so yeah Halley's comet is on there and it was bad news for King
Speaker 3Harold. Lord Peter Ricketts thank you so much and everybody hopes that the British Museum will give out more tickets and accommodate the hordes that are really clamoring to get in to see that amazing depiction of a thousand years of history that changed this entire country and the way it is governed and the way it lives it's it's daily life and it's communal and governance and it's an amazing thing to see so thank you for being with us stay with CNN we'll be right back after the break Shaq here
Speaker 1what's it like to buy a car from Carvana 100% online and get it delivered to your door let me tell you your car is here mr. Shaq thank you mr. Carvana guy can't wait to take it for a spin only the best for you mr. Shaq hey have you always been so big tall and handsome not always I was 610 once seven days to love it or return it mr. Shaq not that I would you never do no I never do so buy your car today on Carvana delivery fees may apply see our seven-day return policy at Carvana.com
Speaker 3now as we mentioned earlier in the program the escalating trade war between the United States and Canada is heating up the Trump administration has threatened to prevent the US government from buying certain Canadian made products that's in response to Ottawa yesterday carrying out its threat to slap retaliatory tariffs on 20 billion dollars worth of American goods it's the latest rupture upending one of the world's closest trade relations and as former US ambassador to Canada David Cohen tells Walter Isaacson it could indeed push Ottawa closer to Beijing thank
Speaker 8you Chris John and David Cohen welcome to the show thank you for having me Walter it's great to see you again this week Canada retaliated with large tariffs based on the trade war back and forth with the United States this keeps going back and forth but this looks like a really bad round now Secretary of Treasury Scott Besson said I don't think you can be in a tit-for-tat with an economy that's 13 times bigger than you in other words Canada just can't win this as a former ambassador from the US to Canada what do you think of that
Speaker 4well I try and approach these questions with as much objectivity as I can I also really don't like criticizing my president whether I agree with them or not so I have to I try and tread a delicate line but I try and be very fair in what I say and I think on that point Secretary Besson is basically right and let's understand what these retaliatory tariffs are they are tariffs of 15 25 and 50 percent on a number of important Canadian products that are exported to the United States including steel just by way of example. But the total amount of trade impacted by these tariffs is about $20 billion U.S. And there's a, the total Canadian exports to the United States in any year is about $400 billion. So although the tariffs have a high sticker price, they only apply to a relatively small percentage, about 5% of
Speaker 8Canada's exports to the United States. So who in the United States is going to get hurt by this?
Speaker 4I think United States consumers are going to be hurt. I think United States businesses that do business with Canada are going to be hurt, particularly small and medium-sized businesses who are really going to be, because all these tariffs are not paid by Canada. I mean, the U.S. tariffs aren't paid by Canada. They're not paid by Canada. And the Canadian tariffs aren't paid by the United States. That's a myth that, frankly, President Trump has helped to perpetuate by saying it's the foreign countries who pay the tariffs. That is not true. It is the companies in the two countries, it is the consumers in the two countries who pay the tariffs. So you're going to see a pretty quick impact, for example, on small automobile parts. Manufacturers in the United States, in Detroit, by way of example, but in other border cities where these tariffs are going to be imposed on them, they're going to have to pay them. They're not going to be able to pass them on. Imagine a small business in Detroit that is providing automobile parts manufactured in Canada to Ford or to General Motors. That can be able to pass those tariffs on to them. They're going to have to pay them. They're going to have to absorb them. And if it causes them to go out of business or lay off employees, American employees who work in those small businesses, that's where the impact is going to be felt.
Speaker 8Well, the latest thing from President Trump is to try to stop Bombardier from selling planes in the United States. That's a great Canadian jet manufacturer. And suddenly there's a backlash in Kansas among Republicans because Bombardier makes a whole lot in Kansas. Right. So this is the reason why
Speaker 4even traditional tariff policy, and I'm not in love with tariffs. You know me a long time. I view tariffs as sort of a governmental interference in the way the market works. I'm never a fan of those. But particularly between the United States and Canada with integrated supply chains, the tariffs just don't work the way they would work as if you're imposing tariffs on China. Which is the model that President Trump's tariff policy seems to follow. Bombardier is a great example because 55% of Bombardier's manufacturing is, in fact, either done in the United States or uses United States parts. Bombardier's U.S. headquarters is in Wichita, Kansas. There are a lot of tariffs in the United States and Canada. So I'm not a fan of the tariff policy, which is why Senator Moran reacted so vociferously to the application of the tariffs because it's going to adversely impact his constituents in Kansas.
Speaker 8Is there any merit to President Trump's desire to rebalance trade with Canada? And do the Canadians need to try to understand what he's trying to do?
Speaker 4So I think the answer is that there is some merit to some of President Trump's tariff policies. I'm not sure balancing trade is the right issue. And by the way, that's not just with Canada. There are 100 countries that have an imbalance of trade with the United States and President Trump's imposing tariffs on all of those countries. So I think that balance of trade issue is not a balance of trade. A legitimate issue to impose tariffs on? Myself. I mean, that's just, I think that's the wrong justification because I think it misstates balance of trade as a, both as the cause of it, as well as the result of it. There is an imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada, but the United States is getting a lot of goods for that money they're paying. And here's the real headline. The goods they're getting that's driving the imbalance of trade is energy. It's oil and gas. If you back out the oil and gas that the United States buys from Canada, it is Canada that has a slight balance of trade problem with the United States. Or balance of trade between United States and Canada is almost equal, slightly favoring the United States over Canada without energy. It is the energy imports of the United States from Canada that is driving the imbalance of trade numbers. And so if you posit that by pinning tariffs on imbalance of trade, President Trump is trying to balance the trade. If he were successful, he would be cutting down on energy imports from Canada. And that would dramatically affect in an adverse way, states like Michigan, we're going to talk about states where their midterm elections were important, Michigan, Ohio, Kansas, and even in the Northeast, because of the imbalance of trade for electrical energy, with a significant amount of electrical energy moving from Canada to the United States, in Massachusetts, New York, Northeastern states. And I don't think that President Trump or anyone in his administration is advocating that. For the United States to buy less energy from Canada, because it's cheap, it's convenient, it's a friendly country, or it has been a friendly
Speaker 8country until this trade war. If this trade war continues, let's look at some of the things that Canada could do more in retaliation. Could they cut back or cut down on energy supplies to America and what effect would that have? So
Speaker 4two things, there have been some in Canada, who have advocated for putting Canada's energy exports to the United States in play. One of those people is a fairly important person, Premier Ford, who is the Premier of Ontario, which is the largest trading province of Canada with the United States. The Prime Minister to date has said that he does not want to put energy in play. And there are other premiers, primarily Premier Smith from Alberta, where most of that oil, and gas comes from, who have vehemently pushed back on putting energy in play and using energy as a card in this tariff war. An enormous amount of oil and gas consumed in Eastern Canada actually runs through pipelines that run through the United States. And that if Canada retaliated by putting energy in play, the United States could retaliate by shutting down Canadian access to those pipelines, which would mean that the first provinces hurt by an energy war would be Ontario and Quebec, two of the larger Canadian provinces. So that's one of the reasons probably why Prime Minister Carney has been against injecting energy into the tariff war. The other thing that's been talked about, Canada has a wealth of critical minerals. It is something the United States covets. And again, there's been conversation that maybe Canada should begin to limit United States access to critical minerals. Again, Prime Minister Carney has said that he does not want to use critical minerals in a tariff war because he thinks one of Canada's great calling cards is the reliability of supply. You don't have to worry about Canada. When you make a deal to buy critical minerals or make a deal to buy energy, Canada will honor that deal. So as of now, Prime Minister Carney has sort of rejected the two big calling cards that Canada has, energy and critical minerals
Speaker 8as retaliatory tools. Could Canada end up making a trade deal with China?
Speaker 4Well, I think you see a lot of footsie being played. And if you will, it's not just Canada. I think the- I think the irony of Trump administration trade policy, and this is not a- I'm not making a judgment here. I think I'm just stating facts. The irony of United States trade policy is that it is pushing many traditional trading partners, including Canada, but many others, the EU, the UK, Japan. It is pushing all those countries to make deals with China. And of course, the signature element of United States trade policy is that it is pushing all those countries to make deals with China. And of course, the signature element of United States trade policy remains to try to wall off China and not make a deal with China. not to make trade deals with China. And the proof point of this is that a few months ago, Canada made a small deal with China relating to canola, because Canada is a huge exporter of canola, and China is a big importer of canola. And that small deal drew a very negative reaction from the Trump administration of don't get into bed with China. You'll give us no choice but to retaliate against you for
Speaker 8doing business with China. If Canada does make some defense arrangements with China, and if this trade dispute with the United States continues, how could that affect NORAD, the North American defense we have with Canada?
Speaker 4So, of course, they're completely counter to each other. NORAD is a very important bi-national defense arrangement. By the way, it is a joint defense command under the joint command of Canada and the United States. It is the only bi-national defense command in the world, which tells you how close historically the U.S.-Canada relationship was. NORAD is all about countermeasures. Continental defense. It's about defense of North America. And Canada is an essential partner in that defense. I'll remind you, I don't have to remind you, you'll remember it, but remind your listeners a couple of summers ago about those balloons floating over Canada, floating over the Arctic. They turned out to be Chinese spy balloons. And ultimately, they were shot down by NORAD aircraft. Now, the interesting thing is, the NORAD aircraft that shot them down were United States fighter jets, because the Canadian Air Force did not have the range and type of aircraft on assignment to NORAD or elsewhere that were capable of shooting those balloons down, which goes to the underinvestment of defense by Canada, which is one of President Trump's legitimate interests. Gripes, again, with respect to Canada, as well as other NATO allies that we've seen play out in a substantial increase of commitments to NATO by Canada and other member nations. I think the Prime Minister has played his hand exceedingly, Prime Minister Carney has played his hand exceedingly well. I mean, he doesn't have a lot of cards because of this difference in scale. I think he's tried to negotiate as a sovereign nation. He's pushed back in a respectful way when he needs to push back. He has not engaged in name-calling. He has tried not to personally engage with President Trump. He's engaged professionally and tried to negotiate. So, I have a high level of confidence that any defense-oriented conversations and deals, that Canada would make with China, would protect continental defense issues to the maximum extent
Speaker 8possible. David Cohn, thank you so much for joining us. Walter, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 3And finally, here comes the bride, and even a Russian strike can't stop her. It was the night before her wedding when a blast wave tore through the Kiev apartment of 33-year-old Lyudmila Ryzhak, and that was the night before her wedding when a blast wave tore through the Kiev apartment of 33-year-old Lyudmila Ryzhik, and her soldier partner. But instead of postponing the nuptials, the couple dug through the rubble, cleared and dusted debris off their bridled special clothes, and headed out to be hitched. The newlyweds told the Associated Press, And isn't that a fact? Hope and life has to continue. That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can always catch us online on our website and all over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London. I wrote a little song to remind you, Choice Hotels gets
Speaker 9you more of the experiences, you value. The Cambria Hotel's got it all. A rooftop bar, have a ball. Bring a date, your squad, or even your mom. Book direct at choicehotels.com.
Speaker 10Observe the North American dad, 50s, great polo collection. He enters his vehicle information on Carvana. An offer appears in minutes. Remarkable. He squints, reads it again, smiles and says, dang, that's a good offer. The highest form of approval. No haggling, no hassle. No one called him boss. He's still on the couch. Astonishing. Sell your car today on carvana.com. Pickup fees may apply.
PodcastTranscript AI