Crowds Resume Trek to U.S. after Entering Mexico
CYRIL VANIER, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Protecting the crown prince: Saudi Arabia insist Mohammed bin Salman had nothing to do with the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, instead blaming a rogue operation. Tearing up another nuclear treaty, president Donald Trump wants the U.S. out of a Cold War agreement with Russia. My guest says that not the right move.</s>SCOTT MORRISON, AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER: As a nation we failed them, we forsook them and that will always be our shame.</s>VANIER (voice-over): We are live from the CNN Center here in Atlanta. I'm Cyril Vanier. It's great to have you with us.</s>VANIER: Saudi Arabia foreign minister is calling the killing of Jamal Khashoggi a tremendous mistake by a rogue operation. In a FOX News interview, Adel al-Jubeir called the journalist's death a murder and added crown prince Mohammed bin Salman was not aware of the operation beforehand. Meanwhile, the Saudi press agency reports the crown prince called Khashoggi's elder son to express his condolences. Turkish authorities will question 28 more consulate staff members on Monday. As Nic Robertson reports, a key element of the investigation, Khashoggi's body, still has not been found.</s>NIC ROBERTSON, CNN  INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): The trail for Jamal Khashoggi's body is going cold. Video released at Turkish media over the weekend reveals the hours before his death. This as Saudi officials offer, their first accounting of events.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This wasn't a rogue operation. This was an operation where individuals ended up exceeding the authorities and responsibilities they had. They made a mistake when they killed Jamal Khashoggi in the consulate and they tried to cover up for it.</s>ROBERTSON (voice-over): A fist fight, a choke hold, the implication being Khashoggi's death an accident. In Riyadh, 18 people arrested. But there are still holes in the Saudi narrative, not least they say they are cooperating with Turkish investigators. But still Khashoggi's body is missing. Where some of these consular vehicles went in the hours after Khashoggi's disappearance, still a mystery, Saudi leaks say his body given to a local collaborator. Forests and farms outside Istanbul have been at the center of rumors. His body may have been dumped there but, as yet, no evidence. On Saturday, Turkish investigators questioned consulate employees, including the consul general's driver, but still no body, his friends demanding its return.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Give it back so that we can raise his funeral. Let the whole world watch Jamal Khashoggi's farewell, who was killed in a dark room with horrific details and whose body is tried to be hidden.</s>ROBERTSON: President Trump asking, too.</s>PRES.  DONALD TRUMP (R), UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: Somebody knows, but nobody of the various investigation groups at this moment know. But we'll find out.</s>ROBERTSON: The U.S. president now beginning to question the role his Saudi ally, crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, may have had in Khashoggi's death.</s>TRUMP: It's possible. You don't know that, but it's possible.</s>ROBERTSON: A spokesman for Turkey's president Erdogan says it is a matter of honor that they continue their investigation. The discovery of Khashoggi's body would help investigators and may shed some light on the role of one of the suspects, a top Saudi forensics expert -- Nic Robertson, CNN, Istanbul, Turkey.</s>VANIER: Christopher Hill is former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and Iraq and the dean of the University of Denver's Joseph Korbel School of International Studies. Ambassador, what do you make of the Saudi foreign minister's latest remarks? He said the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was a mistake and one that was done without the knowledge of Saudi leadership.</s>CHRISTOPHER HILL, FORMER U.S.  AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ: Clearly, this is a Saudi line that they're trying out. They've try out these various lines over the couple -- last couple of weeks. Frankly, they're not really working. They're certainly not working in the United States, especially in Washington and on the Hill. So I think the Saudis have a lot of digging to do here to get out of this mess that they've created for themselves. And the real issue is how they're going to do it and what is going to happen to the U.S.- Saudi relationship.</s>VANIER: The Saudis have made their move now by providing this story. Now it's up to Turkey and to the U.S. to make theirs. And it seems they haven't really decided how to respond.</s>HILL: Well, it's interesting. President Erdogan --</s>HILL: -- signaled that he was going to provide a lot more details in the next 48 hours as if to say he wants something from the Saudis in the meantime that he's giving them an extra 48 hours. This Saudi move, though -- I mean, they've tried it out and it's really a dog that just isn't hunting. I mean this is not really going to work. And I think they're going to have to come up with something else. And in particular I think MBS who's going to be -- they're going to look very carefully at Mohammed bin Salman and see what is going to be his future. Obviously he has really wired things in Saudi Arabia. He has everyone in every important position on his team. But this is very serious. The problem is Saudi talk about somehow they can threaten the U.S. I think they need the U.S. probably more than the U.S. needs them.</s>VANIER: When you say the U.S. and possibly Turkey, but especially the U.S. are waiting to see what Mohammed bin Salman's future is going to be -- I mean where does the uncertainty come from? Because it's unclear who could possibly take his place or remove him from power. He has the blessing from the king. We keep hearing that the King may not have quite the wherewithal to change anything anyway.</s>HILL: Well, I think it's a very complex picture back in those palaces in Riyadh. And I would not be surprised if there are a lot of discussions going on about what his future is. To be sure he looks very solid in terms of how he's built his future. But I'm sure he's made a lot of enemies in a short time. And I'm sure there are a lot of knives out to get him. So really the question is what is the U.S. -- what are countries like Turkey going to do about their relationships with the Saudis in the future? I think the Saudis really need to take a hard -- consider this -- consider their futures here now. They've got Saudi commentators going on the air to say hey, you've got to not mess with us. We can cause great problems to the international economic picture and things like that and threats. But I think the Saudis, you know, on a more sober moment, if you will have to consider the fact that they need the West. They have a lot of countries in the region that don't particularly like them and frankly, they've had some very serious economic problems in recent years. So a lot of issues for them to think about and I don't think this is by any means known how the story is going to end.</s>VANIER: It seems according to "The Washington Post" reporting that it's also a point of embarrassment for Donald Trump here privately, which is the much touted relationship between his son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner and the Saudi Crown Prince. According to "The Washington Post" the U.S. president sees this is a liability.</s>HILL: Well, to be sure, President Trump has had to deal with his son- in-law's problems over the course of his two-year presidency. But I think what is significant is that every U.S. president for the last few decades has counted on Saudi Arabia as being an important ally. But nobody, until Donald Trump became president, has considered Saudi Arabia as the be-all and end-all of Middle East peace. I mean after all, the President made it very clear that whatever you want Saudis, we're going to do including probably the strongest position for Iran that we've ever seen from a U.S. president. And this clearly reflects Saudi thinking going into this. So the President has indeed looked to Saudi Arabia for just about everything in the Middle East. And the question is will that change. And of course, we haven't heard much from Jared Kushner. We never do.</s>VANIER: Going back to an earlier point. Why do you think the U.S. still seems to be hedging on what its best response should be to this? I mean do you think that they are negotiating with Saudi Arabia and perhaps trying to see how they can both save face in this? Or do you think they're actually waiting for evidence in the investigation?</s>HILL: I think they're waiting to see it play out because the options for this administration, frankly for any administration are pretty horrific. I mean no one wants to cut off all ties to Saudi Arabia -- to the Saudi Arabians. I mean this is really too much. And so no one wants to do that. So they're hoping the Saudis will come forward with something that passes the last test (ph) from this idea that somehow a fist fight broke out and then there was strangulation but no one is believing that. So I think the whole idea is maybe to give the Saudis more time to concoct a story. I don't think people expect -- certainly not in the short run that Mohammed bin Salman will somehow be cast aside but I think the Saudis are going to have to do better than to arrest a few people and claim that it was a rogue error. But I think it's important to understand as well, when we talk about Turkey -- there's a lot that goes on between the Saudis and the Turks. And I think to some extent Erdogan is really to trying to get back at the Saudis and --</s>HILL: -- he's got a pretty good issue on which to do that. By the way, he doesn't have a particularly clean record with respect to journalists. But he certainly has never been accused of inviting one into a consulate and then hacking the person to death.</s>VANIER: Yes, the Turkish president says the naked truth will be coming to light soon. And he is scheduled to give a talk, an explanation to his party members on Tuesday. So we're wondering whether more information might come out then. Ambassador Christopher Hill, thank you very much for joining us.</s>HILL: Thank you.</s>VANIER: Just days after U.S. announced it would pull out of a key nuclear treaty with Russia, a top U.S. national security advisor could come face-to-face with Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin says a meeting between the two is being prepared during John Bolton's trip to Moscow this week. On Sunday one of the men behind the agreement former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, told Russia's Interfax news agency the U.S. rejecting the treaty is a mistake. Fred Pleitgen has the story.</s>FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: The U.S. has long been accusing Russia of violating the INF treaty by developing and deploying medium-range nuclear-capable missiles. Now President Trump says America is axing the agreement.</s>TRUMP: We're the ones that have stayed in the agreement and we've honored the agreement. But Russia has not, unfortunately, onto the agreement. So we're going to terminate the agreement, we're going to pull out.</s>PLEITGEN: During his visit to Moscow in the coming days, National Security Advisor John Bolton is expected to formally tell the Russians that America is leaving the INF Treaty. INF stands for Intermediate Nuclear Forces. The treaty was signed in 1987, between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. And ultimately led to almost 2,700 medium-range nuclear missiles being withdrawn. Experts saying, by and large, the agreement has worked.</s>REAR ADM.  JOHN KIRBY (RET.), CNN MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC ANALYST: It was designed to provide a measure of strategic stability on the continent of Europe, by banning missiles of a range between 300 and 3,400 miles. Both cruise and ballistic missiles. So it was really meant to kind of take the temperature down. And it resulted in the destruction of literally thousands of missiles and it has been in effect ever since.</s>PLEITGEN: Russia denies violating the treaty and accuses the U.S. of reaching it by developing anti-missile systems. Vladimir Putin, recently making what some felt were troubling remarks about possible nuclear warfare.</s>VLADIMIR PUTIN, PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA (through translator): In this situation, we kind of expect that someone will use nuclear weapons against us. We do not do anything ourselves. Well, yes, but then, the aggressors should still know that vengeance is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we are the victims of aggression. And as martyrs, we will go to heaven and they will simply die.</s>PLEITGEN: The U.S. also believes the INF treaty puts it at a disadvantage versus a resurgent China which is not part of the agreement. Another reason the administration says to pull out of the deal -- Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Moscow.</s>VANIER: Jeffrey Lewis is a self-described arms control wonk. And that makes him the perfect person to talk to about all of this. He heads the East Asia nonproliferation program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. Jeffrey, pulling out of this treaty from the U.S. perspective, good or bad idea?</s>JEFFREY LEWIS, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, MIDDLEBURY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, MONTEREY: I think it's a pretty terrible idea. You know, the reason given is that the Russians cheating on the treaty, which is probably true. But pulling out doesn't fix that problem. It did just leave it in place. So, it's not a decision I'm wild about.</s>VANIER: But it allows the U.S. in theory, at least, to now start competing with them. And the second reason also that you haven't addressed is that China, which is not a party to this treaty has been building and stockpiling missiles. So, the U.S. also wants to counter that. So, two reasons.</s>LEWIS: Well, I mean, there are lots of reasons. In 2011, John Bolton wrote an op-ed, saying that Iran's missiles were reason to pull out of the INF Treaty. So, people have their reasons. But you know, the reality is, this is a treaty that banned land-based missiles of a -- of a particular range. It doesn't ban those same missiles on ships or aircraft. So, you know, the United States has for many years had the option of responding to these deployments, whether they are in Russia or China or Iran by using land and sea-based systems. But generally, we have it. Because while it's a problem, it's not a problem that you can fix by getting your own missiles of the same range. It's a -- it's a deeper and more complex issue than that.</s>VANIER: But do you agree with the assessment that Russia has been violating this treaty for years?</s>LEWIS: I just think that in recent years, it does look like the Russians have done two things, they violated the treaty with a new cruise missile which looks pretty much like it has the sort of range that means it should be covered. And if also found very legalistic ways to circumvent the treaty, taking advantage of loopholes and other technicalities. So, the treaty certainly needed some work.</s>LEWIS: But simply walking away from it leaves all of those weapons in place in Russia and China and leaves the United States with no real strategy to do anything about it.</s>VANIER: And can you make one thing, one essential thing about this conversation super simple for us. Why this -- why is this particular category of missiles posing a problem here? Because, there are all sorts of treaties governing nonproliferation for different weapons. And here we're talking specifically about land-launched missiles with a range of 500 to about 5,000 kilometers. Why are those, in particular, a problem?</s>LEWIS: Well, there was an enormous crisis in the 1980s when the Soviet Union began deploying missiles like this. And their idea was they would be able to hit targets in Western Europe from the Soviet Union. The United States made a decision to deploy the same weapons and the real challenge that these weapons pose is they are so close to their targets. That they are deeply destabilizing. They create an enormous incentive for the other side to attack first before it gets hit. So, you know, all weapons to some extent pose a little bit of this dilemma. But weapons of this range just make it very, very acute. You know, the reason the Soviets, in the end, decided to agree to the treaty is when the U.S. deployed these weapons, the Russian, or the Soviet general staff called it a gun to their head.</s>VANIER: OK. So, what happens now? Another arms race?</s>LEWIS: Well, I feel like that's probably where we're headed. You know, it's not an arms race with the kind of speed and intensity that we saw in the Cold War, but it's picking up. You know, we're watching one by one each of the major treaties that really solidified the post-Cold War set among the abandoned. Starting with the ABM Treaty, which limited missile defenses. The U.S. walked away from that in 2001. Now, the INF Treaty has gone and it does look like the Trump administration has made a decision not to extend the big treaty covering strategic nuclear weapons. And so, you know, we are getting into this place where there really aren't any of these treaties left and both United States and Russia have very active programs to design new and more sophisticated nuclear weapons.</s>VANIER: And well, certainly, the Trump administration hasn't met many treaties it doesn't want to rip up. We'll leave it at this for now. And, of course, we'll see if this ends up being confirmed. For the moment, it's just the U.S. saying you're going to do this. We'll see what actually happens. Jeffrey Lewis, thank you so much for joining us.</s>LEWIS: It was a pleasure.</s>VANIER: Australian leaders are offering an apology decades in the making. Up next, their plans offer restitution to victims of child sexual abuse. Plus hurricane season meets election season in Florida. We hear from the two main candidates for governor and look at how Hurricane Michael is impacting the vote there.