Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross; Interview with Former U.S. Ambassador to NATO and Former U.S. Special Representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker; Interview with "Fela Kuti: Fear No Man" Host Jad Abumrad; Interview with "1929" Author Andrew Ross Sorkin. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired October 20, 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]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
The Gaza ceasefire tested but holding. We'll have an update from the region after a deadly weekend in which Israel bombed the enclave and Israeli
soldiers were killed by Hamas.
Plus, a tense White House meeting and a critical moment for Ukraine. The U.S. president suggests carving up the Donbass region to end the war. I'll
ask Kurt Volker, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, what happens next?
Then, art, activism, and an African icon. Celebrating Fela Kuti, a pioneer of Afrobeat who risked his life to better his country.
And "1929," inside the greatest crash in Wall Street history. Lessons for today from the Great Depression.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
More lives lost in Gaza. Despite the ceasefire, it was another deadly weekend in the shattered enclave. Israel accused Hamas of violating the
truce and killing two of its soldiers. The IDF unleashed major airstrikes in response, which killed dozens of Palestinians. President Trump, though,
insists that the ceasefire is still in place. He dispatched his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, back to Israel to keep
the deal on track. They met with the prime minister, Netanyahu, on Monday behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, the U.N. warns that the aid supplies getting into Gaza are still way below what's needed. Israel is refusing to open the Rafah Crossing
while awaiting the return of more deceased hostages from Hamas. The decision to allow some aid in, though, indicates Israel is maintaining key
components of Trump's ceasefire deal for now.
So, what happens next in terms of implementing the next phase of the agreement? Let's bring in veteran diplomat and former peace negotiator
Dennis Ross, who joins me from Washington, D.C. Dennis, it is good to see you. And we heard President Trump asked about the state of affairs and the
increased violence that we saw over the weekend. As noted, the two IDF soldiers killed by Hamas, Israel responding and killing dozens of
Palestinians, both sides blaming the other for violating the ceasefire.
President Trump, as he was meeting with the prime minister of Australia, was asked about the situation, saying the ceasefire remains in place and
once again threatened to eradicate Hamas if it doesn't abide by the agreement with Israel.
From your experience in the past, what's the likelihood of such a fragile truce holding, given the history, Israel's longest war, deadly war in Gaza
for the foreseeable future?
DENNIS ROSS, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL MIDDLE EAST COORDINATOR: I do see it holding for the foreseeable future, mostly because President Trump wants to
preserve it. Turkey, Qatar and Egypt, who have the main leverage on Hamas, want to preserve it. Prime Minister Netanyahu is not in a position to say
no to President Trump. And I think he probably also wants the war to be over at this point.
So, I think for the time being, this holds. I think Hamas will continue to test the limits of it. It depends on the nature of those tests. They're
testing it in one way because there are still 16 bodies they have not yet turned over. I have no doubt that there -- some are really hard to get to,
but that's probably not the case for all 16. And they have been sort of meeting them out almost individually and mostly under pressure. So, that
will be one test.
The other is what we just saw. You had a couple of Hamas emerge with an anti-tank missile and fired at Israelis on bulldozers, and that's what led
to the killing of two soldiers and the severe wounding of another. The real issue, I think, at this point will be how much pressure Turkey, Egypt, and
Qatar put on Hamas.
[13:05:00]
And also, we're seeing examples of the pressure the U.S. is putting on, because Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are there. Apparently, the vice
president is going to go there as well. That's very much, I think, focused on keeping Israel sticking to the agreement, even as when the president
says Hamas will pay a terrible price if they don't fulfill it, that's a kind of public posture of threatening.
But at the same time, he accepted the explanation that these were rebel Hamas elements who acted yesterday, and they weren't, in fact, following
orders. I think that gives them the benefit of the doubt. It reminds us that everybody seems to have a stake in wanting to preserve this, at least
for the time being.
GOLODRYGA: These actions, though, continue. I mean, I heard you say earlier this morning on our air that Hamas is playing games, especially as
it relates to the return of the deceased hostages. It has been reported that it was Israeli intelligence that was presented to both Turkish
officials and Qatari officials to let them know that Israel believes that Hamas does know the whereabouts of more of the remains, that they're just
not turning over.
If you have that factor, in addition to what you just noted and the President seeming to accept, that these are fringe elements of Hamas who
Hamas leadership doesn't necessarily have control over at this point in terms of killing the IDF soldiers, if we see more and more of this, how
does a ceasefire like this hold? I mean, does it really speak to the strength and involvement of President Trump alone?
ROSS: If you keep having killings, it will not hold, because then the pressures will build up to the point where Netanyahu will tell the
president, loOK. we can't endure a case where we're there, they're not fulfilling their part of the deal, and we're losing soldiers. So, that
actually would break it down.
But I'd make one other point that sort of validates, I think, the idea that Hamas has been playing games, at least with regard to the remains, they had
no difficulty finding all of the 20 who were alive, and they were held by different groups within Hamas, even in some cases, groups outside of Hamas,
like Islamic Jihad. That they were able to determine very quickly. As I said, are there some of the bodies and remains that are probably buried and
difficult to get to? I'm sure that's true. But does that account for all 16? I highly doubt that.
GOLODRYGA: Oh, and of course, the psychological toll that this continues to play on those families, we continue to highlight as well. We saw an
interview over the weekend with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff on CBS's 60 Minutes. And an interesting moment was when Jared Kushner said this about
implementing phase two. I mean, it was a huge accomplishment to get phase one done, and we see how fragile that remains.
Here's what he said about phase two. He said, the biggest message that we've tried to convey to the Israeli leadership now is that now that the
war is over, if you want to integrate Israel with the broader Middle East, you have to find a way to help the Palestinians thrive and do better.
Lesley Stahl asked, how are you going to do that? And Kushner responded, we're just getting started.
So, let me ask you, if you were mediating this deal right now and getting to phase two effectively, how do you get that started without a replacement
for Hamas and with Hamas still clearly showing that they still wield some power in the enclave?
ROSS: LoOK. the critical issue right now is to begin to put in place the alternative administration. That starts with the Board of Peace. It is
reinforced by having this technocratic Palestinian administration, and it is further strengthened by having the International Stabilization Force
also deploy at least to the places where the Israelis have withdrawn from.
So, all that has to be implemented sooner rather than later. That creates some momentum on its own. It also puts Hamas in a position where it doesn't
want to look like it's now trying to block what could be the whole rehabilitation, recovery, and reconstruction effort within Gaza. Under the
circumstances that that takes place and where the Palestinian population in Gaza feels it's protected, they will be much more prepared to stand up and
put pressure on Hamas, and Hamas will find it increasingly less tenable to be resisting its own public as opposed to looking like they're still
opposing the Israelis in some fashion.
GOLODRYGA: What you don't want to see happen is Israel continue to remain the occupying force in Gaza, and thus you have this Council of Peace and
the signatories from other Arab and Muslim countries who, at least on paper, are saying they're willing to deploy their own forces. You know this
region better than most. What's the realistic likelihood that you could see other Arab soldiers patrolling the streets of Gaza while even some elements
of Hamas remain in leadership?
[13:10:00]
ROSS: It's a really good question because certainly historically we would not have seen that kind of readiness. But I do feel like something is
changing. All the key Arab states right now want this to be over. It isn't just the mediators, meaning Qatar and Egypt plus Turkey. It's not just
them. The Saudis, the Emiratis, they want this over, and also, they want to do reconstruction, but they won't do reconstruction. They won't invest in
reconstruction if Hamas is still in control or if Hamas isn't disarming.
So, there's an enormous stake that they collectively have in beginning to implement all 20 points, but starting specifically with being able to
create an alternative administration in Gaza. So, long as you don't do that, you leave a vacuum, and the vacuum gets filled, and unfortunately it
gets filled most likely by violence.
So, the key here, if you're really going to move quickly, if you're really going to give a greater chance to sustaining the ceasefire and ending the
war, is to get that Council of Peace, that -- the technical administration up and running, and to have at least some presence from the outside that
has also a military capability, if for nothing else than just to re- establish law and order, if for nothing else than to ensure that the distribution of humanitarian assistance is going to the people who most
need it, which is still not the case even today.
GOLODRYGA: There's so much said about what Israeli officials, what all officials, I guess, say publicly and then to their own domestic audiences
as well, and it should all be taken with a grain of salt because there's politics, there's theater involved as well, and at the end of the day,
though, what's most important is that there are human lives at stake.
At its surface, president -- or Prime Minister Netanyahu says that he will never accept Palestinian Authority leadership over Gaza, but we know that
in reality, that they do actually work pretty closely, the Israelis, with the PA, especially as it involves the West Bank. Do you see at least a
situation where, in the interim, you do see a larger Palestinian Authority president, maybe not Mahmoud Abbas-led, but just from a technocratic
standpoint, do you see a situation where we could envision more of a PA authority in Gaza in the months to come?
ROSS: LoOK. I see it in two phases. In this initial phase, whatever is said, when you take a look at this technocratic government, this
administration, it will include people from the PA, even if they're sort of purely technical functional types, not necessarily political types, it will
include them.
You will have Palestinian participation in the Board of Peace, maybe even someone from the Palestinian Authority on the Board of Peace. That'll be in
this first phase. To really have the PA play a more prominent role, you really have to see genuine reform in the Palestinian Authority, which we
have not seen until we see some genuine reform.
And I measure that in terms of appointing a highly credible, independent, empowered prime minister. We've seen it done before, from 2007 to 2012,
Salam Fayyad was appointed over the opposition to the acquiescence of Mahmoud Abbas. I think in the second phase, we will see that.
So, there'll be some PA involvement even in the early first phase. Over time, if there's real reform, we'll see much more. Ultimately, you can't
get to the 19 to the 20 points unless you have a reformed PA.
GOLODRYGA: And sometime in that period, we're likely to see Israeli elections again. I mean, at the very least, this time next year, if not
sooner. Dennis Ross, really good to see you. Thank you so much.
ROSS: My pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And do say with CNN, we'll be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, there are mixed reports coming out of the White House about what went on behind the scenes of Friday's White House meeting with
Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy is spinning the talks as a success, calling President Trump's call to freeze current battle lines a positive
development.
But both the Financial Times and Reuters report that off-camera, the meeting descended into a shouting match, with Trump turning down Kyiv's
critical request for long-range Tomahawk missiles. The White House meeting came a day after Trump spoke on the phone with Vladimir Putin and agreed to
meet with him in Budapest sometime soon.
Kurt Volker was America's ambassador to NATO and former special envoy to Ukraine. He joins me now to help us sort through the conflicting reports.
Without reading the reports word for word here for you and for our viewers, I think that was a pretty good summation, Kurt, from the Financial Times
and the AP about what happened on Friday behind closed doors. Nothing nearly as shocking as what we saw in terms of a bottoming out of the
relationship between Trump and Zelenskyy the first time they met in the Oval Office.
But this was not the meeting that President Zelenskyy was hoping he would have this time around either. And it does seem that that phone call with
Vladimir Putin sort of spoiled the momentum going into this meeting. How did you interpret, A, the phone call with Putin and, B, the outcome of the
meeting Friday?
KURT VOLKER, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO AND FORMER U.S. SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE TO UKRAINE: Right. Well, thank you very much for having me.
I think that, first off, the outcome, let's start with that. The outcome is not what President Zelenskyy was looking for, but it's also fine. We
basically are where we have been for a long time. President Trump was dangling the idea of sending Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine to try to get
Putin to re-engage and to negotiate, strike a deal, and so forth. That seems to be the way President Trump played this.
President Zelenskyy really wanted the Tomahawks. And I think the way to play it would have been provide the Tomahawks with a commitment from
Ukraine not to use them if Putin agrees to ceasefire. But President Trump wanted to hold back for now and see if he can engage with Putin. So, this
is about where we've been.
Where it goes from here, you're going to have Rubio teeing up a meeting of Trump and Putin. He's going to meet with Lavrov at some point in the coming
week or so. And I have a feeling that what we're going to discover is that Putin is not changing his position at all. He still has maximalist demands.
And this does not set the stage for a productive meeting with President Trump. And I think we're going to be faced with the same situation we've
been in time and again, where we actually need to put more pressure on Putin to get him to do a deal.
GOLODRYGA: It did seem like coming out of the meeting a few months ago, I think it was a three and a half- or four-hour meeting, which is typical at
times with Vladimir Putin with Steve Witkoff, that there was a miscommunication or misinterpretation. Literally, I think Witkoff came
without his own translator and relied on Vladimir Putin's. But essentially was if we give up the regions -- the Donbas region, freeze the fighting
there, both sides will accept the situation, sort of the territorial swap that he explained in a subsequent interview. That led to the Alaska
meeting. But President Trump walked out pretty discouraged from that meeting with Vladimir Putin, saying that he wasn't giving as much latitude
as had been projected.
I'd like to play sound from the president over the weekend on this issue of territorial swaps.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Let it be cut the way it is. It's cut up right now. I think 78 percent of the land is already taken by Russia. You
leave it the way it is right now. They can they can negotiate something later on down the line. But I said cut and stop at the battle. Go home,
stop fighting, stop killing people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, that's freezing the fighting on the battlefield where it is right now with Vladimir Putin essentially want is land he doesn't even
control at this point. Do you think from everything you know about where Vladimir Putin is right now, over three years into this war, that he would
be willing to just stop and accept the current dynamics on the battlefield as they are?
[13:20:00]
VOLKER: Not yet, no. He thinks he can still get more. And so, he wants to keep fighting to get more, and he wants to see through these bluffing
tactics in negotiations, whether he can convince Trump or others to put pressure on Ukraine to give him more.
It was interesting the way President Trump phrased that. He said he's got 78 percent. He's referring to Putin having 78 percent of the territory that
Russia claims to have annexed, meaning that they haven't been able to take everything they want. And he's saying, stop now, and then negotiate for
more later. That is, in my view, upside down. This is not the way to look at it.
Putin has taken about 20 percent of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine wants to get it back, but Ukraine is willing to settle for a ceasefire as is, which
is a major concession from Ukraine if they were to do that.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, looking ahead, you mentioned that before there would be any meeting between President Trump and President Putin, that you would
have their representatives, this being Secretary of State Rubio and his counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, meeting before them. Many are viewing this as a
positive in the sense that Secretary Rubio has long been more of a hawk on Russia and has favored Ukraine's position more than even some of the other
members of President Trump's team and his cabinet.
Do you envision a scenario where something could be worked out or agreed upon between Rubio and Lavrov that could turn a potential meeting in
Budapest into a more effective one than we saw in Alaska?
VOLKER: Yes. Well, the honest answer is no, I don't expect that. I expect the Russians to maintain their maximalist position, which will probably
mean there's no basis for a Trump-Putin meeting, and therefore, that gets postponed.
I wouldn't agree that Rubio's going to be tougher and that will yield a better result. Ultimately, whether it's Witkoff or Rubio, the decision-
maker is Trump. He's the one who's going to decide where to go as the next step. The problem with the Alaska meeting is that Witkoff didn't get it
right. He didn't understand what he heard from Putin, reported it as though there was a trade territory in the works. Russia gets all of Donbass but
pulls out of two other provinces. That's not what Vladimir Putin came to the table with. He says he keeps everything he's got and he gets the
Ukrainians to give him more. That's clearly what went wrong. It's clearly what got President Trump upset at that meeting and why they called it
short.
Rubio won't make that mistake. Rubio will get it right in terms of what the Russians are saying. But unfortunately, there's no reason to think that
Putin wants anything other than all of the Donbass, including territory he's not been able to conquer, as well as the laundry list of other demands
that he has, such as the change in the Ukrainian government, demilitarization of Ukraine, permanent neutrality of Ukraine, and
recognition as Russian on the land that Russia has taken.
GOLODRYGA: And that's just -- you know, that's a non-starter for Ukraine, I would imagine that's a non-starter even if you ask President Trump today.
It was reported --
VOLKER: Or ask the European as well. No European leader can live without precedent of that you conquer by force, you get to keep it, and it's
legitimized. That sets the stage for war all over Europe.
GOLODRYGA: Well, that brings me to the Europe question because the president likes to compare his success in Gaza to potential success in
Ukraine. And these are completely different situations, completely different dynamics and players. What could perhaps, though, be a
commonality is if President Trump decides to lead that effort in Ukraine the way he has led, and as you heard from the previous segment, only he
could have achieved the way the United States did, showing its power there, and telling both sides, all sides, in that war that they need to compromise
to get to some sort of ceasefire.
We aren't seeing President Trump play that driving role here, and he's relinquishing a lot of that to the Europeans. He said from the beginning,
this isn't my war, this is Europe's war. He's agreed to sell arms and weapons to Europeans that would then be transferred to Ukraine. And the
Financial Times writes that European leaders out of Friday's meetings were not optimistic, but pragmatic with planning next steps.
[13:25:00]
And on the heels of that, the E.U. foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said this. She said, we see President Trump's efforts to bring peace to Ukraine.
Of course, all of these efforts are welcomed, but we don't see Russia really wanting peace. Russia only understands strengths, and only
negotiates when it's really put to negotiate. So, right now, we don't see that. Essentially, she's saying, you know, America's not doing everything
it can. So, what can the Europeans do without that role from the U.S.?
VOLKER: Well, there are things that all of us can do, including the US, but just from the European side. They could finish the job in seizing the
frozen Russian assets and converting that into funds available to Ukraine for the purchase of weapons, for sustaining their finances, and do this
over a couple of years. They could go ahead and deploy a coalition of the willing to Ukrainian territory for training, equipping, and assistance with
air defense. Right now, jokingly, some people refer to this as a coalition of the waiting. They're still not doing it. They're just talking about it.
It could be done now.
A third thing is to work at NATO to integrate Ukrainian and NATO air defenses and extend NATO's air defense zone by 150 kilometers or so over
Western Ukraine, together with Ukraine. This would make airspace safer for NATO countries because Russia's been violating them regularly, and it would
also provide some assistance to Ukraine in protecting its civilian populations.
GOLODRYGA: In terms of what the U.S. has left on the table, it's rare that you see bipartisanship. I mean, we're in week three and a half now of a
government shutdown, but you do, I believe, have 85 signatories to a tough sanctions package that's just awaiting the president's signature. Against
Russia, now there's question as to the effectiveness of that, but just the message alone that that sends to Russia would be a change, especially from
President Trump. Why do you think he hasn't as of yet?
VOLKER: Right. Well, President Trump has still got his eyes focused on the deal. He doesn't want to be in the mode of confrontation. He wants to be in
the mode of getting a deal. And so, adding on more pressure, sanctions, Tomahawks, et cetera, he thinks will make it harder to get a deal. And
partly he thinks that because that's what Vladimir Putin tells him.
But I think the reality is that he needs to actually pull the trigger on these measures, put secondary sanctions in place, give Ukraine the
Tomahawks with the promise not to fire if the Russians agree to a ceasefire in order to raise the stakes to get Putin to actually agree. But President
Trump is thinking about it differently right now. He's really trying to get the deal. And Putin is using that desire, is using President Trump's desire
to get a deal, to get him to back off of tougher measures.
GOLODRYGA: And to buy himself more time too, which he's been successful in thus doing. Kurt Volker, always good to see you. Thank you so much for
joining the show. We appreciate it.
VOLKER: Thank you. Pleasure.
GOLODRYGA: And next to a new podcast that asks some provocative questions. Can music become a weapon of political resistance? And can music actually
change the world? The podcast is called "Fela Kuti: Fear No Man." And over 12 highly danceable episodes, host Jad Abumrad tells the story of Fela
Kuti, the pioneer, the Afrobeat music, whose music challenged Nigeria's government and transformed African culture. Abumrad created the addictive
public radio series, Radiolab. He also made the award-winning podcast about another legendary musician, "Dolly Parton's America."
So, Jad, welcome to the program. This was one of these stories where I had never been familiar with this subject. And my co-host for my other show is
of Nigerian heritage. And as soon as I told her about this, she was so excited. She's like, oh, my gosh. Do you understand what an impact he had
in Nigeria? I sent her your podcast, so you got another listener right then and there. But I really enjoyed spending time over the weekend getting to
know a bit more about Fela Kuti. If you could tell our viewers about who he was and what drew you to his story, especially now.
JAD ABUMRAD, HOST, "FELA KUTI: FEAR NO MAN": Yes. Bianna, thank you so much for having me on. I mean, Fela is one of the most consequential,
controversial figures that we have in music. I mean, on the most basic level, he is a Nigerian -- or was a Nigerian musician who made music from
the 1960s to the late 90s. He invented a style of music called Afrobeat that was not just great dance music. It was not just the kind of music you
put on at a party and got the party started. But it really became the catalyst for a political movement that almost toppled a dictatorship.
[13:30:00]
And so, what drew me to the story of Fela, but not just his story, the story of his family, the story of Nigeria writ large, is because I'm
somebody who -- I mean, I got into podcasting through music. So, I love music. I think it's so special and important. But I look around the world
right now and I see madness in the music industry. I see madness in all directions.
And as somebody who loves music, I find myself asking, like, what is the point of music now? It feels like the music that we make shouldn't just be
aesthetics, it should really do something. And Fela is really a case study in a musician who made music that mattered. His music was, as you said in
the introduction, a weapon that challenged authority. And that, for me, is the kind of story I just really need to hear right now.
GOLODRYGA: OK. So, I think we've piqued our listeners and viewers' interest enough to play some of Fela's music for them. And let's listen to
one of his most famous songs, "Zombie," from 1976. For rights reasons, this is just a short clip for a much longer song.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(MUSIC PLAYING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: OK. It's hard to actually hear the words, but Fela is singing in pidgin English, the idea that a zombie will do whatever you tell it to
do. That was a metaphor, really, for Nigeria's armed forces. Just talk about the power and impact of that song alone.
ABUMRAD: Yes, that song is really pretty extraordinary. I mean, basically, the lyrics say that, you know, as you alluded to, the armed forces in
Nigeria, if you tell them to go left, they'll go left. If you tell them to go right, they'll go right. If you tell them to kill, they will kill. If
you tell them to die, they will die. So, it's basically calling the Nigerian military brainless zombies.
What's interesting about that song is that when he came out with that in 1976, he would play it at his club, The Shrine, and there was an army
barracks just down the street from The Shrine, and so a lot of soldiers would come to that club. He would sing it to the soldiers in the crowd,
basically saying that you're a bunch of droids and you have no mind of your own. And he would do this sort of dance on stage where he would sort of
goose step around and he would take his sacks and put it under his shoulder and like as if he's sort of holding a rifle. And so, it was sort of like
poking fun at the military.
But as you can imagine, in a country where the military really is the law, they did not take kindly to this. And some people will make the argument
that it was that song that directly led to the military raiding his compound, apparently 1,000 soldiers encircling the compound, pouring
gasoline on the thing and burning it to the ground because of a song, because of -- you know, because of music. And that is, I don't want to
romanticize that kind of violence, but it's amazing to me that a song could enrage.
I mean, what would it take to enrage the Trump administration to the extent that they want to burn the house down of the singer who sang it? It's kind
of a fascinating question. And so, that song for me holds a lot of energy about what music can do in a completely different environment.
GOLODRYGA: And turn him into an even more powerful voice and figure of resistance in the country essentially by doing that. Let's play a shot from
the clip from the podcast describing that raid that also, we should note, killed his mother ultimately. These forces threw her literally out of the
window. Let's play that sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABUMRAD: Over and over, the Nigerian police and army broke his arms, his legs, his face.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, they threw his mother from the roof of her house and she died.
FELA KUTI: Threw my mother out the window.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He went and took his mother's coffin and put it on the doorstep of the government building, the Capitol building.
ABUMRAD: No matter what they did, he never backed down.
FELA KUTI: If you think I'm going to change or compromise, they're making me stronger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: I mean, I think it's that last line that really makes him stand out. It didn't change him. It didn't make him stand down. It only empowered
him and enraged him even more.
ABUMRAD: Absolutely. And it fueled his creativity. I mean, Bianna, one of the things that I find most interesting about Fela is that he would do
things to deliberately provoke the government. Often, the government would then raid his house. He would then release a song about that raid virtually
the next day, which would create another raid, which then he would capture in a song.
[13:35:00]
And so, it was -- I don't want to say that he provoked the violence in order to create music out of it, but it was some kind of infinity loop that
was happening there, that the more they came after him, literally the more music he made, which created more confrontation. So, it's a really
interesting cycle that he became a part of that in many ways still continues to this day, 26, 27 years after his death. Actually, that number
is wrong, but he is still creating that kind of energy.
GOLODRYGA: Well, and the fact that his music and his lyrics spoke so much about his own humanity, the suffering to the people, about government abuse
and overreach, what's so interesting about that, and you document this brilliantly in this podcast series, is that he didn't start out that way.
He started out not as somebody who was going to change the world or change the country, but as someone who was a classically trained musician, who one
of his influencers early on in his life, when he visited the United States, was so moved by his performance of one song, she went up to him and asked
him, that must have been about something so, so powerful. Tell me about that. What drove you? What were you singing about? And he said, soup. And
she's like, what does that mean? And he said, no, like the soup that you eat, the edible soup. So, to go from soup to what his lyrics and songs
really represented towards the end of his life is quite stunning.
And so, that leads me to, again, we're going to invite everyone to listen to this podcast to get a real sense of the man and his influence, but if
someone were to ask you, like, who is he similar to? Describe him. You're asked that -- or you asked that question in the podcast. Let's play a clip
of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fela is like Bob Marley and Mandela, combined.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he was kind of like Mick Jagger and James Brown.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Definitely with some Muhammad Ali thrown in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then with the protest element of Dylan.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't forget Malcolm X. You wanted to be Malcolm X.
FELA KUTI: Brothers and sisters, the secret of life is to have no fear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: So, is that how you came to know him as well? Sort of a Bob Dylan meets Mandela meets Muhammad Ali meets James Brown?
ABUMRAD: I mean, that's what happens when you try to describe him to people, because we really have no figure like him in the West. I came to
know him just going to parties and someone would play his record and be like, damn, what is this? Then you get to try to know the guy behind the
music. And that's when you run into the word salad of trying to describe somebody who really is just un-summarizable, except in this kind of
pastiche of other figures.
But he was kind of -- I mean, you know, you mentioned that I did the Dolly Parton series before this. I love musicians who defy all the categories.
You cannot put them in any one place. And there are very few musicians, I think, who fit that. I mean, Dolly is certainly one. And Fela absolutely is
definitely a guy that you simply can't put him in any one place. He is sort of everything.
GOLODRYGA: Well, again, I am about four or five episodes deep into this podcast. I told my kids, I said, give me a few hours. I need to go for a
walk and I'm listening. And it was one of the greatest things I did this weekend. And I promise our viewers, they will really enjoy getting to know
more about who this man was, his influence, and just listening to the great sound as well. Jad Abumrad, thank you. Really appreciate it.
ABUMRAD: Thank you so much for having me on.
GOLODRYGA: We'll be right back after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
GOLODRYGA: Now, it was the moment that sent the U.S. and the world really into a panic and drew the roaring '20s to a close. The 1929 Wall Street
crash was the most devastating in history and it eventually brought about the Great Depression. That's the focus of Andrew Ross Sorkin's new book and
he speaks to Walter Isaacson about and what we can learn from it nearly a century later.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Andrew Ross Sorkin, welcome back to the show.
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, AUTHOR, "1929": Andrew Thanks for having me, Walter.
ISAACSON: You write about the 1929 crash in this book and you say it's one of the most largely misunderstood significant events. Why was it
misunderstood?
SORKIN: I think there's two things. One is I think most Americans unfortunately have only a vague conception that something bad happened in
1929 and that whatever happened in 1929 led to the Great Depression. I think that's the sort of prevailing view. And by the way, it was my view
before I invested the last eight years of my life in the archives writing this book.
Really, the crash of 1929 was so much more because yes, it led to the Great Depression, but the number of dominoes that did begin in 1929 and what
those dominoes were, I think, will surprise a lot of Americans and a lot of readers.
ISAACSON: Does that mean that we could have had the 1929 crash but not the Great Depression of 1930?
SORKIN: Oh, absolutely. So, the crash in 1929, which is really only part of this book, was the first domino. And it took the next domino and the
domino after that to ultimately get us to the Great Depression. But there were so many mistakes and frankly bad decisions along the way that led us
to the Great Depression.
And in fact, I argue that you could look at what happened even in 2008 in the financial crisis. And one of the reasons that we didn't go into a Great
Depression is I like to believe that we learned at least some of but clearly not all of the lessons.
ISAACSON: One of the common threads, though, is the Fed, the Federal Reserve Bank. That had been around for 15 years, I think, by the time the
1929 crash happened. And one of your great characters, Charles Mitchell, sunshine Charlie Mitchell, runs National City Bank. He gets put on the Fed
and there's this political push back and forth on the Fed that reminds me of today. Tell me how that was relevant.
SORKIN: Well, you're right. And I should say when I began writing this book, I didn't necessarily go into it thinking there were going to be so
many eerie parallels to today. But one of them is this issue of the Fed. We talk oftentimes about the independence of the Fed and what the Fed should
be doing.
Back in 1929, they knew the market was out of control. They knew there was too much speculation. And they talked about trying to tamp it down. But
there was a big question about how you do that. And they were very, almost overly concerned, I would argue, with the politics of the moment.
You know, as you mentioned, the Fed was new back then. It was created in 1913. And there was a view that if they tried to stamp out the speculation
by raising interest rates too high, and in fact, back then, the same debate we're having now about lower interest rates versus raising interest rates
and what that's going to do to the economy. The view is if you did what, for example, Paul Volcker did in the late '70s, not only would these people
lose their jobs, they thought, politically, and get hauled in front of Congress, they thought the Federal Reserve might be eliminated.
ISAACSON: You're a great triple-threaten media. You have, you know -- a wonderful book writer. You have the CNBC Squawk Box. You have the New York
Times and DealBook. If you were doing DealBook or doing Squawk Box in 1929, let's say in August, what type of questions do you think you would be
asking, and should we be asking those questions now?
SORKIN: So, I think the question you'd want to be asking in 1929, and I don't know if it would have been asked, but I wish it would be, is how much
leverage really is there in the system. Every financial crisis, and I think I learned this writing this book. I think I learned this covering the
financial crisis of 2008 in "Too Big to Fail," is a function really of only one thing, it really is leverage. It's too much credit in the system, and
that is what leads to some form of speculation.
1929, it was margin loans on stock. People were literally going to brokerage houses that had sprung up on the corners of streets the way
they're like Starbucks on the corner streets, and you could put a dollar down, and the brokerage would lend you $10. In 2008, it was subprime
mortgages, right? And so, the question for today would be, where is the leverage?
[13:45:00]
And so, hopefully, we would have asked, is there too much leverage in '29? And today, you might say to yourself, is there too much leverage and where
is it?
ISAACSON: When you talk about leverage, you're pretty much talking fundamentally about debt, right? People taking on too much debt.
SORKIN: Yes. Too much debt.
ISAACSON: And too much taken on, the government taking on? Where is there too much debt being taken on now? And how does that compare to back in '29?
SORKIN: Well, it's very interesting that you say that, because when you think about today, the debt, and this is something that concerns me, is a
little bit out of reach. We don't know where the debt is the way we used to know where the debt is. It used to live on the balance sheet of banks.
Today, most of the borrowing, especially in corporate America, is not actually from banks anymore, it's from what's called private credit
vehicles. These are things that private equity firms have set up that live very much in the shadows.
And so, we don't really know how much debt there really is today. And there is a lot of debt that's being embedded in this whole artificial
intelligence revolution that's taking place. So, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars being spent to build data centers, but a lot of that is
being paid for with credit, with debt. And I think we need to watch that and try to better understand what's really happening.
ISAACSON: Now, I'm reading your book, and there's so many similarities between back then, a hundred years ago, and now, certainly an age of great
technology with electricity and cars and everything being transformed. Likewise, it's a roaring jazz age and roaring '20s comes along. Tell me
about that cultural exuberance that's happening then and how that led to the crash.
SORKIN: Well, look, I don't know if people fully appreciate it, but prior to 1919 in America, nobody actually took on credit. Nobody took a loan
because it was almost considered a moral sin to take a loan. People started doing that in 1919 because General Motors wanted to sell more cars and they
started to loan people money. And then Sears Roebuck clocked what was happening and said, well, we'll do the same now for appliances. And then
Charlie Mitchell, the CEO you referred to, who runs National City, which becomes Citigroup, he says, OK. well, we can lend money to people so they
can buy stocks.
And the exuberance of it was a decade long. And all of these people on Wall Street and CEOs are now on the cover of magazines, Time magazine, Fortune,
Forbes magazine, they become almost cultural superstars the way you might think of an Elon Musk or a Sam Altman or a Jamie Dimon today. And so, you
have this sort of remarkable period where the stock market kept going up and up and up. In 1928, the stock market was up 48 percent. And if you had
gotten a loan from the bank to buy stock, it was like free money.
ISAACSON: One of the things that really struck me was, I guess, disparities of wealth, if that's a way you want to put it.
SORKIN: Yes.
ISAACSON: Or just --
SORKIN: The quality is real. Yes.
ISAACSON: Yes. So, tell me how that compares to today.
SORKIN: Very, very similar. I mean, the truth is that the inequality of the late '20s is very reminiscent of where we are today. The social unrest,
interestingly, and the questions about the inequality were not as pronounced in the late '20s. And I don't know if that's a function of the
way the media was at that time.
And, you know, interestingly, it really wasn't till '31, '32 and '33 where you really saw the depression, really move into full force. And
Hooverville's, which are, you know, tented camps started to emerge, including, by the way, in Central Park, literally just blocks away from
where Charlie Mitchell lived on 5th and 74th Street.
ISAACSON: You know, Henry Ford, right after the crash happens, he's there in Detroit, of course, and he gives his workers a wage increase. He tries
to make sure that what happens on Wall Street doesn't affect what happens in regular business. And he laments the fact that so much brainpower is
moving to Wall Street, that they're all these smart people going there instead of making real things. To what extent was that a problem that
helped exacerbate the 1929 crash? Because it's certainly reminiscent of what we have today.
SORKIN: I think it's reminiscent of what we had today. I think it's reminiscent of really the -- what happened in 2008, just how much Wall
Street became not the backroom engine, but the front room engine of the economy. And when that happens, you know, what the true implications of
that are.
You know, interestingly, Henry Ford, in 1929, was described as the nation's second billionaire. So, Rockefeller was the first billionaire. This is not
inflation adjusted, by the way, Walter, this is for real. And Henry Ford was the second billionaire in America. But Rockefeller was the first
billionaire. And this is not inflation adjusted, by the way, Walter. This is for real. And Henry Ford was the second billionaire in America.
[13:50:00]
But you're right, he did -- and he did not only try to raise the wages of his workers, he almost did it to embarrass Hoover and to embarrass the
other CEOs to try to get them to raise wages. One of the things that Hoover was trying to do at the time was almost trying to jawbone his way out of
this, calling this sort of a psychological problem that if people could just sort of get over it and if companies could pay people more, he also
wanted to tax people more.
And by the way, Andrew Mellon, who was our treasury secretary, was whispering in his ear the whole time, he was a real capitalist, saying, you
know, let them eat cake, it's fine, let them all fail. If they made poor decisions, they should fail. And so, you had this sort of fascinating
dynamic taking place inside Washington.
And by the way, very much like today's White House. You know, Hoover was on the phone with -- and constantly in contact with all of these CEOs. They
were literally making these pilgrimages to the White House the way they do today.
ISAACSON: President Hoover felt that the collapse of the stock market would not necessarily affect business in America. Why was he wrong?
SORKIN: Well, this is -- you know, oftentimes we say, look at the stock market, look at the real economy, and we think that they're somehow not
connected to each other at all. The reason why he was connected today, but I would argue he was perhaps even more connected then, was because so many
ordinary investors, so many ordinary Americans, had taken on so much debt in the stock market so that when the stock market fell, it wasn't just that
they lost money and that the stocks they had bought at $10 were now worth $1, it was that they had taken on so much debt that they now owed so much
money. And because they owed so much money, they couldn't buy basic goods. That's why they had Hoovervilles.
And so, it really did spiral out of control to the point in which in 1933 9,000 banks faltered. They failed in 1933. And that is really, I think, a
direct domino, if you will, from what happened in fall of 1929.
ISAACSON: The last third or so of your book is actually after October 1929. It's about the Depression, why all of this happens, why it affects
business. And then, of course, Franklin Delano Roosevelt comes in. What does he do?
SORKIN: Well, he does a whole bunch of things, some of which actually Hoover wanted to do, but for whatever reason decided not to or felt he
couldn't. And one of the things that he does is he has what's called a National Bank Holiday. So, he actually shutters all of the banks in the
United States and then tries to prop up the ones that actually he believes are strong enough.
And then enacts, you know, a series of legislation, including the Glass- Steagall piece of legislation, separating the gambling piece from the banking piece, but also creating the FDIC so that your money that goes
inside a bank is insured. And then, later, in 1934, creates the SEC, which really oversees and regulates the stock market, the idea of insider trading
and manipulation, which by the way, which is a huge component of what was happening in 1929. So, much of the stock market was being manipulated
oftentimes by the elites.
ISAACSON: I must say that when I finished your book. I was like, all right, I got to sell stocks and I'm not a big stock speculator. It was
like, oh, my God, this could happen again. It's such a frightening book. To what extent do you think it could happen again? And to what extent do you
think you might provoke it slightly if people read this book?
SORKIN: Well, I'm hoping not to provoke it. I'm actually hoping that to the extent that people read this book they take away some lessons. I hope
policymakers better understand what happened in 1929 so that we can take away lessons so this doesn't happen again. It does not have to happen
again. We are not destined to have this happen again.
It is true. I do think that the train, if you will, is careening towards some form of a crisis at some point. The problem is you'll never know.
We're always living in a bubble of some sort and it will pop at some point too. What we want to do though is prevent it from popping in such a way
that it creates the next Great Depression. And I think a lot can be avoided.
The truth is we've actually managed to avoid that ever since then. Yes, we've had crises. 1999 dot-com bubble was a crisis. 2008 was a crisis. But
here we are, Walter, and we're better for it. And in many ways, I think, you know, we've had more and more innovation. A.I., I think, is very
exciting and will be here for as long as I can imagine. Will we have a hiccup along the way? I imagine we will. But let's hope that's all it is.
ISAACSON: Andrew Ross Sorkin, thank you so much for joining us.
SORKIN: Thank you, Walter. So, appreciate it.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, Happy Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Lights. Fantastic fireworks displays kicked off the five-day celebration in the
Indian temple city of Ayodhya as a record-breaking 2.6 million lamps were lit along the Saruya Riverbank last night. In Colombo, Sri Lanka, devotees
are seen offering their prayers at temples decorated with traditional Rangoli art. Meanwhile, these police dogs in Nepal are also being honored
as part of the festivities, dressed up in garlands and vermilion as dogs are seen as messengers of Yamaraj, the Hindu god of death.
All right. Happy Diwali to everyone. That is it for now. Thank you so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
