Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with African Development Bank President Akinwumi Adesina; Interview with "The Director" Author Daniel Kehlmann; Interview with Journalist and Professor Karen Attiah. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired May 16, 2025 - 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.
As the U.S. slashes aid and imposes tariffs, could African nations tilt towards China? I asked the president of the African Development Bank.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL KEHLMANN, AUTHOR, "THE DIRECTOR": The Nazis wanted to use pure art as propaganda.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- the filmmaker caught between his artistic vision and the Nazis. I talked to bestselling author Daniel Kehlmann about his new novel,
"The Director."
Also, ahead, as President Trump turns up the heat on U.S. University's journalist and professor Karen Attiah tells Michel Martin about resistance
summer school, her popular new online course.
And finally --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSE MUJICA, THEN-URUGUAYAN PRESIDENT (through translator): My years in jail were a bit like a workshop for my -- that actually forged my way of
thinking and my values.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- as the world mourns Uruguay leader, Jose Mujica, we look back at my conversation with the man who proudly called himself the poorest
president.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiana Amanpour in London.
This week, markets around the world breathed a sigh of relief, but for how long as China and the U.S. announced a 90-day pause on sky high tariffs
that have robbed global markets. 2025 has been an economic rollercoaster and finding itself uniquely impacted is Africa.
The president of the African Development Bank has warned tariffs could send, quote, "shockwaves" through the dozens of nations impacted, reducing
trade and raising debt. Meantime, deep cuts to USAID are already putting millions of Africans at risk as they lose access to life-saving medication
and supplies.
So, could this crucial rising market tilt away from the United States and towards China? I spoke about all of this with Akinwumi Adesina. He's ending
his second term as the president of the African Development Bank, which aims to reduce poverty and improve living conditions for everyone across
the continent.
Akinwumi Adesina, welcome to the program.
AKINWUMI ADESINA, PRESIDENT, AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK: Thank you, Christiane.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, you are, you know, coming up to the end of your second term and there's a lot on your plate, especially with this new
American administration. You've said, first and foremost, that the onslaught of tariffs will send, quote, "shockwaves" through African
economies. Lay out the worst-case scenario of what you fear might happen.
ADESINA: Well, first and foremost, I think, you know, if you take a look at it, Christiane, 47 out of the 54 African countries were actually
affected by the tariffs, and that's a lot in Africa. And when you're looking at it, what that basically means is that the export revenue for
many of these exports will fall clearly, export revenue will fall. Many of them will actually have a decline in their foreign reserves.
Now, when that happens the implication has to do with what happens with their domestic currencies. Now, those domestic currencies are suddenly
going to weaken. When those currencies weaken, two things are going to happen. First, it's that you're going to find that most of these countries,
actually, Christiane, are import dependent countries. So, you're going to find that high inflation becomes a problem.
And secondly, you find that the cost of actually servicing a lot of their debt, which is actually foreign currency debt, but in local currencies, is
going to get worse. And so, this is exactly what you are finding as a situation.
And so, I feel that the other thing that we are going to see is the ODA, as you know, official development assistance, is going down. If export of U.S.
goes down, the export to China, Europe, all that goes down because they can actually buy also from you, that's going to affect official development
assistance's ability. So, I think the real issue that we must ask ourselves is, how does Africa navigate all of this?
AMANPOUR: I'm going to jump in there because I want to ask you exactly that. How does Africa navigate all of this? President Trump initially put,
for instance, a whopping 50 percent tariff on Lesotho, and he said, in his words, that country was no one that nobody's ever heard of. So, I'm just
pointing that out. I would like your reaction to that.
But it goes to the sort of scattershot method of these tariffs and this action. So, how does a whole continent navigate?
[13:05:00]
ADESINA: It's certainly a challenge, but actually, what you have to look at is, first, I have said that you -- there's no point African countries
having a tariff war with the United States. They cannot afford to have one with the United States. But clearly, there has to be some flexibility in
the discussions and the negotiations that are going on in the interest of Africa.
Check to your point that you raised. The total amount of trade, Christiane, that Africa has for the United States is $34 billion. Now, that's not more
than 1.2 percent of total U.S. trade with the rest of the world. It's nothing to really cry about. You know, even the whole issue we are talking
about with regard to the trade surplus. Africa's trade surplus with the United States is only $7.2 billion. And so, it's no more than 0.2 percent
or so of the total amount of trade surplus.
So, what needs to be done is to have flexibilities in that discussion with United States. We need more trade with the United States, not less trade.
Lesotho, Madagascar, others need more trade, not less trade.
Secondly is to also look at from the perspective of the African countries. They have to diversify their export markets to reduce this kind of impacts
on their economies. And thirdly, as you know, we have the African Continental Free Trade Area. That market is about a $3.4 trillion market,
trade among ourselves. And so, we not actually trading more among ourselves, it's trading more with external parties than we are trading with
ourselves.
So, expanding that domestic market is going to be a critical part of what Africa does. Now, you know, a lot of interest now with what Africa has,
cobalt, lithium, you name it, you know, Africa has to use what it has to negotiate for a better trade and investment deal with all parts of the
world. And so, I think this is really very important.
Lastly, Christiane, just one more thing about this issue, is that the population, take a look at a situation with China. You know, population
matters. Your population is a problem only when you don't kill them. They don't have middle class, they don't have domestic savings, and that becomes
a problem. I believe that Africa should scale up its population, boost its domestic savings and be able to develop consumption as a bigger share of
its GDP. That way you can tariff proof yourself to some extent.
AMANPOUR: So, you mentioned China and we posed the question because it's being posed with all these tariffs come from coming from the U.S. Will
continents like Africa and other countries that are being hit by tariffs, will they turn to an alternative? You know, you may want to be close to the
United States, but if that's not possible, will you move to China?
Some in the Trump orbit believe that that's just a myth, and that's just a wave, you know, to sort of get more aid, you know, a threat to wave around.
What is the reality? Because we know China is heavily embedded in Africa.
ADESINA: Well, you know, I mean, just to be clear, I don't believe that Africa is going to be begging anyone for aid. I don't think aid is the way
to develop anyway. I think, you know, countries will have to develop a lot to other ways.
But with regard to the issue of China and United States, U.S. is a great ally of Africa, so is China. And so, so, you know, Africa is not going to
suddenly isolate itself. It wants to build wider partnerships with the rest of the world. You know, you have United States, you have China, you have
E.U., you have the Gulf countries, you have others. And so, Africa is building bridges, not isolating itself, and that's the critical thing that
Africa is doing.
And so, I think at the end of the day, we want to make sure that whatever deals are being done with Africa are transparent, are fair, are equitable,
are actually led by Africa and in Africa's interests. And therefore, make sure that Africa can capitalize and use what it has to negotiate a better
deal for itself. But basically, Africa is not going to get into the game of isolating itself from any part of the world.
ADESINA: Mr. Adesina, let me ask you, because I wonder what you have come to the conclusion in your terms as a president of the bank. So, here are
the stats. Despite having almost 20 percent of global population, the 54 countries on the continent account for less than 3 percent of global GDP.
Combined, you know, it's smaller than Germany's alone.
What is the answer to the enduring country, this rich continent in human and national resources? Why isn't it doing better? I mean, the question and
the answer may be obvious, but people look at endemic corruption. They look at old leaders, you know, clinging to power, a lack of rule of law, poor
infrastructure. I mean, just to add, you know, Mo Ibrahim, who gives an award every year, has not given it for -- you know, for many years, meant
to honor a former African leader dedicated to democracy and human rights. What conclusion have you come to?
ADESINA: Well, first and foremost, I think, you know, I always like data and, you know, data matters. Don't believe me to believe the data.
[13:10:00]
The issue is you have today, Christiane, 10 of the 20 fastest growing economies in the world being in Africa. And so, African countries are doing
well, despite a lot of the challenges they've had to face with, starting with Covid, starting with global geopolitical issues in Russia and Ukraine
war, as you know, that led to increased inflation, you know, for many of the countries, overtop of the debt overhang that it had because of weakened
currencies and high interest rate in many parts of the world. And so, Africa is actually quite a resilient continent.
Look, I've been president, as you said, for the last 10 years at the African Development Bank. You know, in our work, I started something called
High Fives, Light Up and Power Africa, feed Africa, industrialize Africa, integrate Africa, and improved the quality of life of the people of Africa.
You know, Christiane, in the last 10 years that we've been doing this, it's impacted on the lives of 565 million people. Take the case of electricity,
myself and Ajay Banga, president of the World Bank, launch a joint program, which is to light up Africa, to connect 300 million people in Africa to
electricity, because without electricity, what can you do? You can't industrialize, you can't add value, you can't be competitive in the dark.
And so, that's the kind of thing that we are doing.
So, essentially what we are doing here, to your question about what Africans needs to do to grow faster, first, Africa has to grow by domestic
resource mobilization. In other words, expand the taxable base that you have.
Make sure also that we are getting the right deals. You know, everybody's talking about all these critical minerals. Well, we got to make sure it's
in the interest of Africa. You're paying the right taxes. You're paying the right realities that allows the countries to build their fiscal space. The
other one that actually very important for many of the countries is to continue to accelerate investment and infrastructure.
Look, Christiane, infrastructure is like a backbone that you and I have, if you have it you can do any a lot. If you don't have it, you can do it.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
ADESINA: And we as a bank have invested more than $55 billion in infrastructure. So, I would say, grow your domestic savings. Invest a lot
in infrastructure. Don't export raw materials because export of raw materials for all of what we have is a highway to -- it's a dot of poverty.
But when you export value added, you go on a highway to wealth. And so, the key is industrialization, create jobs and create value chains that Africa
can be provided.
AMANPOUR: Yes. Because it is extraordinary that you do export all those very valuable minerals to be processed outside and African countries get
only a pittance of what they're worth. But let me ask you, all of this that you're saying presumably is going to cost, as you say, money and
investment, but many African countries have been very heavily impacted by the sudden cut in USAID, which means that -- well, I just would like to
hear from you how it's impacting lives and what it'll mean in terms of a government's ability to pay for these things that you are suggesting while
now, it might have to also pay for this healthcare that maybe it didn't before.
ADESINA: Well, actually, you know, just to be clear, the era of aid is gone as we know it, completely gone. And I think the issue with aid is aid
is benevolence. But, Christiane, you know, benevolence is not an asset class, right? People don't invest in that.
The critical thing that we need to look at when it comes to the issue of aid is, first and foremost, to recognize that countries have to grow
domestic resources. You don't grow by depending on others. You grow by expanding your domestic resources.
So, for example, in the case of Africa, you want more taxes and you want governments not only collect taxes, though they have to deliver the value
to this -- to the communities and the countries to a social contract.
And secondly, you want to make sure that the whole issue of the discipline of investment. You don't -- I want Africa to develop through the discipline
of investment. Africa has so much, you've just talked about it. Look at renewable energy, we got sunshine. God loves Africa so much. They've got so
much of it.
We got got hydropower. We have massive youth population that can become the labor force of the world. We have lots of land. You know, Christiane, 65
percent of the (INAUDIBLE) land left in the world to feed almost 9.5 billion people by 2050, it's in Africa. So, what Africa does with it will
determine the future of food in the world.
So, essentially what we've got to do is that. Now, how do we turn this into an opportunity for ourselves? First, I think that the issue of aid should
be turned more into concessional financing. Why? Because conceptional financing allow multilateral financial institutions like ourself to do the
following.
First, we can mobilize private capital. Private capital is the engine of growth. We can help to develop projects. We can help to de-risk projects.
We can help to also make sure that these projects are -- you have risk capital that you can provide for the private sector and maybe finance that
many of them can use. And so, that is the way that I believe that we should go.
[13:15:00]
And actually, Christiane, at the end of the day, I think that Africa is the largest greenfield open field in the world. Everything Africa has a
challenge, whether it's energy, whether it's water or sanitation, whether it's health, it's an investor's dream.
And so, I want Africa to develop with pride because there is no pride in begging from anybody. You develop based on your resources. And you have a
hard nose way of actually doing that. So, my issue is I want U.S. and Africa working a lot more together. I want to see investment partnerships
between African countries a lot more United States but on Africa's terms.
You know, look, we are very strong. We have something, Christiane, that I call it Africa Investment Forum, which we started about eight years ago. It
has mobilized over $225 billion of investment interest to Africa. We also have something called the Africa Investment -- I mean Africa Development
Fund, which is a concessional arm of the African Development Bank. Every dollar, Christiane, leverages $10, and that's the way to put in money,
that's the way to have sustainable impact.
AMANPOUR: Well, look, yours is a beautiful and a rich and a resource filled country, and you sound like you have a lot of ideas and a lot of
optimism, and it's good to hear. So, as you leave soon, your position, Akinwumi Adesina, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
ADESINA: Thank you, Christiane. You do a good job.
AMANPOUR: Thank you. Stay with CNN. And we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next, an acclaimed new novel written by bestselling German author, Daniel Kehlmann. "The Director" takes a fictionalized look at the
real life of Austrian director G.W. Pabst, one of the greatest filmmakers of the silent era. He helped launch the career of Greta Garbo and produced
pictures like Pandora's Box, which have reached a mythic status in cinema.
"The Director" follows Pabst in his most controversial period. Cast out by Hollywood and trapped in Nazi occupied Austria, Pabst soon finds himself
making movies for Joseph Goebbels, head of the Nazi propaganda machine. Author Daniel Kehlmann sat down with me to discuss this complex character
and how this book resonates today.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Daniel Kehlmann, welcome to the program.
DANIEL KEHLMANN, AUTHOR, "THE DIRECTOR": Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: So, the book is "The Director." It's a novel. And the story is quite dramatic and it also happens to be true. So, you are telling the
story of a man called G.W. Pabst, a German. He escaped Nazi Germany in the early 1930s and went to Hollywood. He wanted to make films, but then, not
too long after that, he went back to make movies in Nazi Germany. So, explain who he is, why you chose him, and what kind of movies he ended up
making.
KEHLMANN: He was one of the great directors of the silent movie era. He -- as you said, he went to Hollywood. He got to make one film there. The
studio system treated him terribly. They didn't let him edit his own film. They didn't let him decide where to put the camera. They didn't let him
pick the actors or the script. So, he ended up going back, for strange and complicated reasons, but certainly having something to do with the fact
that it let -- didn't really let him do his craft in Hollywood.
[13:20:00]
And in -- back in Germany, he made films for the Nazis after some initial hesitation. They were not propaganda. They're actually -- which makes the
thing even more strange and complicated, they're not bad films. You can still watch them, you won't be appalled at all.
AMANPOUR: You know, let me -- there's two big points there. Number one, was he uniquely singled out in Hollywood for this kind of treatment, or was
that just the way the studios worked with no matter which director, having a lot of control over what the directors did?
KEHLMANN: Exactly. It was the way the studio system worked. A director was just a hired craftsperson. And of course, in Germany they were Fritz Lang
(INAUDIBLE) now and Pabst, they were what we later would call (INAUDIBLE), like they were in charge of the whole thing. And they were expected to
create a unique masterpiece.
And yes, he then tried to do that when he was back and working for Goebbels. And of course --
AMANPOUR: I need to stop you.
KEHLMANN: -- he got all the resources.
AMANPOUR: I need to stop you, because Goebbels, it's a word that sends chills down everybody's spine or it should. You said they weren't
propaganda. How could it not be propaganda when you're working for the propaganda machine? I mean, that's what Goebbels ran in Nazi Germany. How
could it not be propaganda? How could it be pure art working for the Nazis?
KEHLMANN: Because the Nazis wanted to use pure art as propaganda. And of course, that's a contradictory idea. And we can, yes, have very different
opinions about whether that worked. I think it actually didn't work really, of course. But the idea was to show the rest of the world that they would
not just run very disciplined fascist country, that they could also make better art. And for that, they wanted some of the few great artists who
hadn't escaped them or were still there and were still allowed to work or forced to work, in the case of some like Pabst when he was back and yes --
AMANPOUR: OK. Forced to work. What does forced to work mean?
KEHLMANN: Forced to work means that the minister of propaganda, Goebbels exerted a lot of pressure on him to make films. And what makes the thing so
complicated is that he had kind of come back to make films, but then he was also hesitating, of course, because he was not a fascist. And so, he
started to go down that long road of compromise that, yes, we see many people in all kind of environment, including today, go down.
AMANPOUR: We will talk about today in a moment. You described Pabst' life, you know, not entirely clear whether he consciously decided to return to
Germany to make those films. There's some version that you raise where he's a tragic victim of circumstance, at least that's how he's portrayed. War
breaks out. He's there in Austria. He's looking for, you know, after his sick mother, but his wife, Trudie, she isn't buying it. She calls it the
story you're telling now. Give us your sense of that complicated, you know, reality there.
KEHLMANN: He must have had the real Pabst, and that's also something that happens in my novel. He must have had some contact with the Germans, with
the minister of propaganda when he was still in Hollywood, because even going back for a day into the Nazi dictatorship to visit your mother or to
look after your country estate, which is also another thing he wanted to do, you have to know that they're not going to arrest you right away. And
they must have told him that.
So, they must have told him, listen, you don't have to put up with all this in Hollywood. You can have a life here as a director, but he must have
refused that in the beginning. But still there is a knowledge that's in my character, but I also think that's pretty much true about the historic
Pabst, he had the knowledge that he could go there and wouldn't be killed or arrested right away, and that's because they must have told him in some
way.
AMANPOUR: So, you know, in the book there's a scene which really shows the noose tightening around your Pabst, and that is he's called to meet, you
know, a Nazi minister who just happens to be Goebbels. A, is that true? And B, read a little bit of the passage that you've chosen to read about that
event.
KEHLMANN: I will read the passage and then I'll tell you whether it's true.
AMANPOUR: We're on the edge of our seat.
[13:25:00]
KEHLMANN: The minister laid hands flat on the desktop, smiled and said, The Red Pabst. Pabst felt dizzy. I'm listening, said the minister. Excuse
me? Well, Pabst rubbed his temples. Go ahead, said the minister, you wanted to speak to me. I'm listening. You sent for me. And? Excuse me, I'm
listening. Pabst didn't understand. What did this man mean? What did he want? This man to whom once in a life that was irrevocably over, he would
never have spoken a word and whom he would've had chased off his set if he had dared to show up there.
You are playing the innocent country boys, said the minister. Fine. Have it your way. There are things that are said and things that are not said.
Pabst didn't understand. So, what's said is that you came here to me, The Red Pabst, the communist director, the left-wing hero. What is not said is
that I sent for you because it's better if you came of your own accord, a little better for me, but above all, better for you. The minister looked at
him with a smile. So, he asked, what do you want?
AMANPOUR: It's spooky and it's a little absurd. And it's, you know, very much sort of, you know, back and forth. So, did it happen?
KEHLMANN: Yes, it happened. What was great for me as a novelist, is that I imagined the scene. I thought we have no source for that, but it must have
happened because Goebbels was such a micromanager. And later, after my book was published, I learned that in Pabst' family, they are telling the story
about this meeting with the minister. So, this is one of the moments when you feel a little bit vindicated as a novelist who invents things on the
basis of what you think is likely to have happened.
AMANPOUR: So, you must have obviously seen -- looked for your -- for some of his films, right? You must have watched them for the research. At the
beginning, you told me he made good films and that they weren't propaganda. What kind of films did he make and do they still hold up? I mean, would you
be able to tell that this guy was doing what he wanted with the artistic freedom that he wanted, or was he under some kind of conscious or
subconscious pressure from this horrendous regime?
KEHLMANN: Both. There -- his second film, "Paracelsus," which he made in Nazi Germany, is -- it's a kind of story that the Nazis really liked. It's
about a great doctor in medieval Germany and, it's very competently done. It's very interesting. It has shots that, for example, the first time you
see "Paracelsus," he's examining a naked woman. And you see her, it's a very well-established shot. You see her with her back to the camera, far
away, but still, you look at that and you feel like that's a shot he would not have been allowed to have in a film in Hollywood.
But of course, on the other hand, it's not just generally immoral to work for the Nazis, it was an industry that relied on forced labor. You had --
and every part of the work on the movie set was done by -- as in all German industries in the wartime, by forced laborers and slave workers. So,
there's absolutely no question that this is wrong.
But it's fascinating because it asks the question of how far do you go as an artist in compromising for what you think is your artistic vision?
AMANPOUR: Was it difficult for you particularly -- you know, for you it's also personal. It's not just you know, history. Your father survived the
Holocaust in Austria. How did he survive and does his life and his story inform what you're writing now?
KEHLMANN: He was a director after the war. So, that did inform, of course, just the fact that I spent a lot of time in my childhood on movie sets and
that I feel like I really know how movies are made. He survived. He was 17. He was born in 1927. And with 17, he was still sent to a concentration
camp. Not an extermination camp, but a labor camp, but your chances of getting out of their alive were not very good. But he did survive.
And he was not one of the people who didn't want to talk about it because they were so traumatized. He was traumatized, but he talked about it a lot.
So, there was very, very present when I grew up and I felt like one day I will write about Nazi Germany. And the part of it that was Austria.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
KEHLMANN: And now, with this strange story of a director who is an exile but then decides not to be an exile and goes back into hell, I've done
that. I've written the -- my book about the Nazis and the director.
[13:30:00]
AMANPOUR: And I don't whether your father's still alive, but did he know about Pabst? Would he have approved you writing this novel? Did he think
Pabst was compromised?
KEHLMANN: He died in 2005. So, he doesn't know about that novel. But he would certainly have thought Pabst was compromised. But he would also have
thought it's still worth looking at the movies. But he would not have thought it's cool to work for the Nazis in any way, shape, or form.
AMANPOUR: And finally, you have spoken about the threat to free speech in America today. You are living in the United States, you live in New York.
You know, you said to The New York Times. for us visa and green card holders, free speech is already practically suspended. What's it like being
a foreigner, a green card holder, or a visa holder in the U.S. now?
KEHLMANN: It's very strange because you feel this can end any moment. They can send you home any moment if you say something, quote/unquote, "wrong."
If I say something wrong to you, which I will say whatever I want to say, because I can go back to Germany, but the life of -- the American life of
any visa or green card holder is very unstable now because we do not have freedom of speech. Our lawyers are telling us not to go to demonstrations.
And whenever we leave the country and come back, we have a real danger of being harassed at the border for something we said either in the media or
on social media. And of course, this is still a privileged situation to be in. At the same time, you have people who are so-called undocumented
immigrants being disappeared from the street.
So, what you have in the United States now is what I would call an asymmetrical dictatorship. For some people, it's still completely fine and
they feel free and do whatever they want. And other people have to be very careful, like the hundreds of thousands of visa holders and other people
hide in their apartments because they are disappeared and as sent to concentration camps in El Salvador, as the government says forever.
AMANPOUR: It's a really cautionary tale. Your novel has come out at an incredible time, which I'm sure you didn't predict, but here it lands. Yes.
"The Director." Daniel Kehlmann, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
KEHLMANN: Thank you so much for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: This week, the Trump administration escalated its war with Harvard cutting another $450 million in grants to the prestigious
university, that's on top of the $2.2 billion already frozen. It's part of a growing political pressure on higher education.
Journalist Karen Attiah discusses what she alleges was Columbia University's decision to cancel her popular course on race, media, and
international affairs. Columbia denies her characterization. Attiah tells Michel Martin why she's taken the course online now, creating The
Resistance Summer school. Their conversation covers how some educators are taking it upon themselves to reimagine the future of higher education.
[13:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Karen Attiah, thank you so much for joining us.
KAREN ATTIAH, JOURNALIST AND PROFESSOR: Thanks, Michelle, for having me.
MARTIN: So, you're an award-winning columnist, a former Washington Post Global opinions editor, the founder of Resistance Summer School. That's an
online course that you created after Columbia University declined, and we'll talk about that in a minute, declined to repeat a course that you had
taught in the spring of 2024.
You said that you'd never had a course like that yourself when you were in grad school. So, tell me about the course.
ATTIAH: Yes. So, I decided to create a course called Race Journalism, Journalism or Media and International Affairs. So, looking at the
intersection of. Race and how we've -- how race is constructed throughout the centuries, how identity is constructed throughout the centuries,
basically. And how that intersects with basically how we see the world, how we see other countries, how we see other people, how we see ourselves.
And what I argue basically in the course is saying that this is a process that is mediated. It's -- if you're in journalism, if you're in Hollywood,
it's the stories that we tell about other people that helps to drive and reinforce policy. So, whether that's, you know, public health policy or
refugees or even, you know, going to war, I think, for me, as someone who works in media and has an experience in living and working and reporting
from all around the world, it was really an opportunity to bring all of that together.
And, you know, sadly, there's not a whole lot of black people, non-white people that get to be -- allowed to be experts on the world.
MARTIN: So, the course was fully subscribed, you know, all the -- you know, people in the seats. You got good reviews for the students. You
expected that it would be renewed for the spring of 2025. So, when you found out that it wouldn't be renewed, what did they say to you?
ATTIAH: I was told that the dean would not be renewing my funding.
MARTIN: And were you given a reason?
ATTIAH: Not much, no. To this day, I would still like to know exactly what that decision was about. I still don't have clarity on that. Of course, it
was heartbreaking, frustrating. I was crushed. Yes. You know, it was not only the dream to teach, not only the chance to sort of give back, but I
was really -- there were already students who had approached me from the previous year saying that they were looking forward to the course. So, my
heart, to an extent, was breaking for students who, again, said that they felt that they really needed this course, something like this to be a part
of their education, and I wouldn't be able to give it to them.
MARTIN: So, you wrote about this in announcing the Resistance Summer School. You sat on it for a bit and you thought to yourself, actually, what
I'm going to do is make this kind of, I don't know what's the right word, an open source or open to the public, open to anybody who wanted to
participate. It wasn't -- it's not free. But it is available for people. And apparently, you had this interesting funding model where people who you
offered basically a sliding scale as like what people could afford.
The course sold out in, what, 48 hours?
ATTIAH: Yes.
MARTIN: As I understand it from the site, you had 500 slots for the course, and you've got a waiting list of 1,600 people.
ATTIAH: It's 2,000 now.
MARTIN: 2,000 now. So, what gave you the idea?
ATTIAH: Watching what's been happening politically, and watching what's been happening at Columbia's campus in terms of the capitulation to Trump's
demands over DEI and over, you know, particularly I think for me seeing Columbia's willingness to put the departments of Middle East studies,
African studies and South Asian studies under a special receivership just made me think, OK, I have this course, this work, this labor that I'd done
for Columbia.
And why should it be held hostage, frankly, by an institution that is caving basically on its own values on education. I just felt like I needed
to liberate my work and not just that. I think as a person seeing what's been happening with, you know, what I would argue is a segregationist purge
of teaching about race and teaching about history. I knew from (INAUDIBLE) that what I was teaching about was going to be possibly targeted.
[13:40:00]
I just wanted to free, at least myself, in that subject matter, and to an extent, the students from, you know, institutional cowardice, right. And I
think, for me, I just, also as a person, in this moment, feeling powerless sometimes watching the news, feeling angry that institutions were caving. I
was like, OK, what skills do I have? What could I do? OK. I've got this course. I've got this syllabus. Let me dust it off, bring it out of the
closet and see if anybody wants to have it.
MARTIN: So, you mentioned that receivership. I mean, Columbia isn't acknowledging that they are ceding to that. But it is a fact that more than
50 universities are being investigated by the Trump administration as part of their explicit campaign against DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion
strategies. Their argument is that universities in general, and Columbia in particular, did not do enough in their view to protect students from what
they consider to be the antisemitic overtone of the pro-Palestine protests in that spring.
In March of 2025, the Trump administration demanded that Columbia University place its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies
Department under administrative receivership for a minimum of five years as a condition for restoring federal funding, which they say that they have
now strip them of something like $400 million or something like that.
Now, Columbia responded on March 21st that they didn't refer to the receivership, but they did appoint a new senior administrator to review
leadership and to ensure programs are balanced at that, you know, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department, the Middle East
Institute, the Center for Palestine Studies, the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments with Middle East programs.
And I say all that to say that, do you see what happened to your class per se, as part of that? Do you think that it was related to that?
ATTIAH: What I see, right, is to an extent what the Trump administration is doing with colleges and particularly with Columbia University,
personally I would argue would not have happened if these colleges and universities, and frankly, corporations were serious about their
commitments to diversity.
Since the George Floyd, you know, murder and the Black Lives Matters, protests and all that, we saw so much energy and opportunity and cash and
programs, you know, promises about diversity and about rectifying the wrongs of the past, right?
And so, fast forward to five years later, we started seeing how, OK, these institutions were like, their similar -- their racial justice summer was
over. Their internships were over going back to the status quo, right? And so, I think to an extent, Trump targeting the -- you know, these so-called
you know, woke programs, there's already a bit of a fertile ground because there -- the commitments were already waning.
The funding, whether it's Hollywood, whether it's academia, whether it was journalism, we saw a lot of that -- those promises kind of, you know, be
rolled back, be pulled back. You know, my course was canceled last year before Trump took office. But I definitely see this as part of there is
already, in a sense, a non-commitment, right, in the true sense of the word.
I think that it feels very painfully evident that those commitments to diversity were not much more than branding and marketing to capture, you
know, a moment in the post-George Floyd era.
MARTIN: As you would imagine, we -- because we are journalists, called Columbia to get their take on your perspective on what happened to your
class. And they sent us a statement that said, Karen Attiah taught at SIPA as an adjunct professor during the spring 2024 semester. Her class was
funded and commissioned for that term. She was subsequently invited to return to teach the same course in the spring of 2025 semester, but she
declined. She's also been offered the same opportunity to teach the same course in 2026 at Columbia, which she has not yet accepted. And they go on
to say, it was a privilege to have her teach our students as both a distinguished journalist and valued alumna.
Basically, they're saying they invited you back. Did that -- did they in fact invite you back after initially telling you that the course would not
be renewed?
ATTIAH: I'll start by working backwards. Their second part of the statement says, Columbia invited me back to teach. It doesn't specifically
say SIPA. There are talks about, would I go to the journalism school? Would I be placed somewhere, right?
[13:45:00]
And you'd sort of work it out. I just find that interesting that workaround wasn't offered last year, only after this course went viral in terms of me
doing that.
MARTIN: So, let me just clarify. So, after -- so you're saying that the invitation to teach in this spring of 2026 was only offered after you had
made it clear that you were teaching this course to the public, that you were offering it publicly. So, that's the first thing.
ATTIAH: Yes. Correct.
MARTIN: What about saying that you had been invited back for 2025? What's the -- what's your response to that?
ATTIAH: Yes. So, again, the offer that came through was not -- let's just say it was not through SIPA's funding. And again, I mean, I don't -- this
has little to do with me having a vendetta against Columbia. I -- Columbia shaped me. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't, if it wasn't for Columbia.
But for me as a person, as a -- as someone who cares about the subject matter, I just want to be able to be as free as possible to teach in the
way that I would like to teach, and not with the fear that at any moment the axe could come again, as the political climates changed.
MARTIN: Well, let me ask you this way though. I have to -- I'm going to sort of push forward there. A lot of people saw what happened at Columbia
in particular and some other universities, even if people who were sympathetic to and in agreement with some of the messages around Palestine
and Israel's war in Gaza found the behavior of at least some people on these campuses, objectionable, they found some of their messaging to be
antisemitic. Do you think that's fair?
ATTIAH: I think, you know, I was -- and I was teaching during the protest, during the --
MARTIN: Oh, you absolutely were. Yes. You sure were.
ATTIAH: Yes, during the encampment.
MARTIN: Yes, you were there.
ATTIAH: And so, it was a learning environment or learning lesson in real- time, even for my students, because part of the course that I teach on is mass media reporting on protest movements for equality, right? And so, I
some time not only in the encampments, but even, you know, on the outside.
Now only did I see the -- and my students as well, all of us talked about this and we were Jewish, Muslim, Christian. We were all talking about, no
matter how you feel, the image that was on the outside of what was happening at Columbia was wildly manipulated, misstated, and all that.
But one thing that touched me about the encampment specifically was I saw these students that were highly sophisticated in terms of how they
organized these encampments. These are little towns almost. They had libraries, they had first aid care, they had food that was coming in. And I
think, for me, amidst the controversies, I saw -- Columbia gave me a living example of even what I'm doing right now, right?
And that despite, you know, clashes over politics or -- and disruptions that it is possible for people to organize and for learning to still go on
and for professors to be donating their time freely to the community, right. And so, to me it's like that was also the lesson from the protest,
you know, and we saw, you know, despite what one might think about the chance and the behavior, the larger question was, is bringing in a
militarized NYPD force to occupy your campus and create it into this war zone, right, is that OK?
And so, even though, you know, I'm not going to be on the quad at Columbia, I might be on Zoom or online as we're seeing broadly, again, outside of
Columbia, but broadly this war, this ideological war that we're having over teaching history over black people even having positions of influence and
power, I see myself and, you know, I just feel like I'm trying to do what I saw there, which is just gathering people, whoever wants to listen and that
we will still learn anyway.
MARTIN: Karen Attiah, thank you so much for speaking with us. I'll be interested to hear after your summer school how it all turned out. So,
thank you for talking with us.
ATTIAH: Thank you for having me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally remembering a leader who stood out in a world of opulent and pampered counterparts for his modest life.
[13:50:00]
This week, the former president of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, died at the age of 89. A former guerilla fighter, he spent years in solitary confinement after
being imprisoned during the country's U.S.-backed military dictatorship. But he rose to lead the country between 2010 and 2015 and was popular
around the world for his humble lifestyle.
I spoke with Mujica in 2014 as he met then counterpart President Barack Obama. He told me about his extraordinary story and about why he was driven
to lay out his ambitious policies like a battle against big tobacco.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: You have captured the world's imagination because you are known as the world's poorest president. In fact, you choose to live in your
original residence of your own. You won't go and live inside the presidential palace. Can you tell me what it is that motivates you and how
your 14 years in jail affects the way you live today?
JOSE MUJICA, THEN-URUGUAYAN PRESIDENT (through translator): My years in jail were a bit like a workshop for my -- that actually forged my way of
thinking and my values. I'm not a poor president. Poor are the people who need a lot and that was -- Seneca said that.
I am an austere president. I do not need much to live. I live in the same way I used to live when I wasn't a president and in the same neighborhood,
in my same house and in the same way. And I am a republican. I live like the majority in my country lives. It was a majority who voted for me. And
that's why I identify with them.
Morally, I do not have the right to live like a minority in my country. A lot of people like a lot of money. They shouldn't go into politics. That's
my way of seeing it. I am not improvising. I'm not -- I don't do marketing. This is my philosophy.
AMANPOUR: How long did you spend in solitary confinement? And how did you manage to survive that?
MUJICA (through translator): Because human beings are strong. And that's what I want to transmit to people, that we can trip and fall, but we can
always stand up and start anew. We shouldn't look for that strength outside. We have it inside ourselves. We shouldn't blame others. We have to
look inside ourselves for that strength. Nature has given us all we need.
The ones who fail are those who stop fighting. Life is a lovely fight. We have to defend it. And that's something I came to ask President Obama. We
have a fight against tobacco. Eight million people die a year by smoking. That's a lot more than all the people who dies at wars.
AMANPOUR: Philip Morris is suing Uruguay because of your actions against smoking and against tobacco. What is your response to that?
MUJICA (through translator): I have said it already. I -- it's not about companies; it's not about suing. I am just asking that we do have to really
fight against this. Life is worth everything and we have to fight for it. Being alive is a miracle and I will really insist every day. That's why
this battle against tobacco and other battles for life, I will always fight for them.
AMANPOUR: I just want to ask you finally to explain how you survived what you did to get through 10 years in solitary confinement. I read that you
interacted with the insects and befriended the rats in your cage. Why was that important?
MUJICA (through translator): If you catch a black ant, a normal common ant, you rub it with two fingers, you put her right inside your ear, and
you hear it scream. But of course, you need time to do that. And you have to be really lonely.
When you spend a long time by yourself in solitary confinement, a frog, a rat that comes to eat because you leave some crumbs there, it's life. It's
the life you have there. And probably there's nothing worse than loneliness after that.
[13:55:00]
We are gregarious. We need society to live. We never save ourselves alone. We always save ourselves with the others. These are very elemental things
of life. Yet they're things that we forget too often.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
