Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Interview with Former U.N. Relief Chief and Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue Founder Martin Griffiths; Interview with Singer-Songwriter Paul Simon; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer Michael Powell. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired August 21, 2026 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[13:00:00]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN GRIFFITHS, FORMER U.N. RELIEF CHIEF AND FOUNDER, CENTRE FOR HUMANITARIAN DIALOGUE: There's a direct line between the lack of action on

this and lives firstly in peril and then lost.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Another global choke point under threat as Russia and Ukraine escalate their war in the Black Sea. I speak to former U.N. aid chief

Martin Griffiths about food security and rising poverty.

Then --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAUL SIMON, SINGER-SONGWRITER: It's really true that music is the universal language. It's a cliche, but it happens to be true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: -- the album that brought musical worlds together and courted controversy. 40 years after the release of Paul Simon's "Graceland," we

revisit my conversation with the acclaimed singer-songwriter.

Also, ahead --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL POWELL, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Lost in the notion of meeting an addict where they are is how about meeting a neighborhood or a city

where it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: "The Cities that Said Yes to Drugs." Atlantic staff writer Michael Powell on how he thinks harm reduction policies may have done more

damage than good.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.

As the world watches the Strait of Hormuz and the global energy squeeze, another vital global lifeline, this one for food, is under threat again.

The deal that kept agricultural shipments moving through the Black Sea has not only broken down, but even commercial ships are increasingly under

attack now.

At the start of Russia's war on Ukraine, Moscow's naval blockade threatened the food supply for an estimated 70 million people around the world. And

this comes as the world faces a wider crisis with growing concerns about impunity for war crimes and a severe lack of funding for humanitarian

relief.

Our first guest has been at the sharp end of these crises and he says the International Community is just not doing enough. Martin Griffiths is the

former U.N. Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief. He led the task force that helped broker the last grain deal and is

now pushing to revive the Black Sea Agreement. I spoke with him here in London.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Martin Griffiths, welcome back to our program. It seems that the humanitarian problems around the world are just being compounded in the two

years since you've not been in this official role. First, you remember with the Ukraine war, global South, food poverty, the Ukrainians couldn't get

their wheat and fertilizer and all the rest of it out because of the siege of Odessa.

Then fast forward a few years, now you have the Strait of Hormuz. Different issue, but it's fuel and fertilizer. Again, global South Asia pummeled. We

don't hear enough about it. What do you think is the biggest obstacle to delivering humanitarian aid right now?

MARTIN GRIFFITHS, FORMER U.N. RELIEF CHIEF AND FOUNDER, CENTRE FOR HUMANITARIAN DIALOGUE: It is these choke points, I think, and they are

global in their impact, aren't they? And we didn't really think in those terms when we did the first Black Sea grain deal in '22. We weren't

thinking of a sort of a global shock, but now it is a global shock.

And what we see in the Black Sea now is a huge number of attacks on commercial vessels from both Ukraine and Russia, damaging port

infrastructure as well. And no progress on an attempt to stop it like we have shown can be true last time. This is a conscience issue, not even a

war issue.

AMANPOUR: But it's also a poverty and a food issue.

GRIFFITHS: It's huge. It's huge. And again, much bigger than, you know, the one we did. That took 33 million tons across the world, 45 countries.

This is going to be much, much bigger. And it's the potential for the suffering that we are already beginning to see because of the implosion of

trade across the Black Sea by Russia or Ukraine is evident in its approach to killing people. That's what happens.

[13:05:00]

We don't have --

AMANPOUR: What do you mean?

GRIFFITHS: Because the food isn't going out. The food doesn't arrive. And it's harvest time. And, you know, it's difficult therefore to harvest

properly in many parts of Africa. I'm talking mostly about Africa. So, there's a direct line between the lack of action on this and lives firstly

in peril and then lost.

AMANPOUR: Well, the huge obvious center of loss right now and bloodshed is Sudan in Africa.

GRIFFITHS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: But I want to ask you, what do you think there is the -- you know, you say started up again. You have some ideas. But the U.N. is not

front and center like it used to be. So, who and what organization takes the lead? Because you can't do it.

GRIFFITHS: No, no, I can't. And first of all, it's a damn shame, I think, that the U.N. can't do this.

AMANPOUR: And why can't it? It has the global convening power. Has it been defanged, disarmed, defunded?

GRIFFITHS: No, not really. It's been defunded, as we know. But this isn't very expensive work doing a mediation. It's politically risky because you

look around to the parties and both of them say, no, no, thank you. I don't want to do it. We don't know what the Americans say, although they are

being helpful at this time, which is interestingly important, isn't it?

AMANPOUR: Yes, absolutely.

GRIFFITHS: You know.

AMANPOUR: The U.N., it appears to me, maybe I'm wrong, you know it from the inside, is facing an existential struggle unlike one that it's ever

faced since it was created because the Trump administration is not very pro-U.N. and it has brought its own alternative, the Board of Peace.

GRIFFITHS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: So, what, let's say -- I mean, we know that there's an election coming up for the next U.N. Without going into characters about the current

SG or future ones, what does the U.N. SG need to do to implement what you're saying, which is basic, you know, humanitarian fulfillment, which is

its basic duty?

GRIFFITHS: Yes, it is exactly that, Christiane. And, you know, I'm disappointed with the UNAT reform, not because of the things it's doing,

but because of the things it's not doing. It's helping back office non- duplication. It's talking about merging some agencies together.

But I look in vain for the vision about what is the new humanitarian operational footprint. It's the same in political diplomacy and mediation,

where the U.N. is more absent. I mean, the humanitarians are present everywhere and have not stopped except for funding.

But political diplomacy and mediation, Gutierrez once said, because he's so annoyed with Netanyahu, that he knew he wouldn't have a role in Gaza. Well,

that's a huge mistake. Gaza would have been exactly down the U.N. street.

Why? Because what the U.N. brought, certainly in our Black Sea thing, is a range of talents, in-house and out-house. It brought real experience from

all continents of mediation. It brought mediation skills which were untainted by interests, which is not true for any member state. And it knew

the game. And it's not knowing the game is the problem that --

AMANPOUR: So, there's a dearth of experts.

GRIFFITHS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: There is an increase in various countries who are involved in these various wars, having no interest in helping the U.N. solve the

humanitarian issue.

GRIFFITHS: That's right.

AMANPOUR: I was listening to your successor, Tom Fletcher. This is International Humanitarian Awareness Week, right now. And he was talking

about another humanitarian issue, and that is around the laws of war and the protection of civilians.

And he was saying that, you know, in Kherson and other places, the Russians are now using drones specifically to target and terrorize civilians in

order to, whatever, keep trying to make them fold and surrender. And that there aren't the laws of war that keep up with the progress and

sophistication of the tools of war, i.e., in this case, drones. How much do you worry about that?

GRIFFITHS: A lot. I think it was the sort of cutting edge, the front edge of the disaster that found itself upon humanitarian assistance globally.

Aided a lot, as you say, by the development of drones. But the level of impunity anyway in the wars that I've had anything to do with in the last

two or three years were just so intense.

[13:10:00]

And in the Gulf, in the MENA region, Middle East region, but also in Ukraine, there's been complete impunity. And there are reasons as to why

that's being allowed to go forward. One is the allies of the improper people are, of course, Washington, D.C. and some other countries.

AMANPOUR: But the improper people, you mean the aggressors?

GRIFFITHS: The impunity, those who embrace impunity as a safe haven for them.

AMANPOUR: So, you're saying Washington backs them?

GRIFFITHS: Washington has backed them in the case of Israel, for example. It's not doing so now. And what's interesting about Gaza now is it's

Washington taking what I think is a very, very strong and good lead to try and do something about it. They're doing the same in Sudan.

AMANPOUR: Interesting.

GRIFFITHS: But they still have a focus, which is part of the impunity argument, I think, Christiane, on quick wins. And I'm a person from my own

mediation experience who says the obvious, which is if you don't have a win-win solution to a war, you won't stop the war. It's as simple as that.

And you can't do it through threatening with bombing and force majeure. You have to talk. And that's why also in the Black Sea, they have to talk.

AMANPOUR: I mean, we've seen that. So, what you're saying is it's proven every day because these wars are not ending.

GRIFFITHS: They're not ending. None of them.

AMANPOUR: The issues that they say they're trying to end. On humanitarian workers, for the last three years, in the last three years, something like

1,000 humanitarian workers have been killed. I think mostly affiliated with the U.N. and all the areas that you are deployed. Most of those are local

workers. So, most of those are not internationals. Of course, internationals get the most attention. What can be done to once again raise

the flag that humanitarian workers need to be protected?

GRIFFITHS: I think you try to do something about the perpetrators. And what's striking in this very long list of people, international and

national, and there should be no distinction --

AMANPOUR: But there is.

GRIFFITHS: But there is.

AMANPOUR: In terms of media coverage, in terms of impunity. And -- yes.

GRIFFITHS: Look at Yemen and so forth.

AMANPOUR: Yes.

GRIFFITHS: Yes. Is to investigate and lay a case. But we have a lot of atrocities, war crimes, obviously genocide and elsewhere. And we don't see

the courts following this up with independent investigations. It's very, very slow. We haven't seen the end of the ICJ case as yet. So, the law is a

law unto itself, it's very slow. And there seems to be no way to settle things. And without punishment, we continue to have impunity.

AMANPOUR: You mentioned ICJ. That's a specific case. Basically started by South Africa about Israel's war in Gaza. But there's also the ICC, the

International Criminal Court, which the United States is going after because it doesn't want to be targeted, investigated because it's not party

to the ICC, nor is Israel, by the way. And it's put sanctions down and it just keeps and Secretary of State Marco Rubio keeps saying, we want to

dismantle it brick by brick or all the rest of it. What is your view on that?

GRIFFITHS: I think it's scandalous. This was set up in good faith those years ago under Kofi Annan, as we remember, the secretary general of the

United Nations, which the wide number, I think is that 250 governments or states who supported the ICC. And for it to be suddenly found inconvenient

is a grotesque approach to its actions.

Yes, you can quarrel about how well people have behaved there, whether they should have been quicker at finding indictments for people and judging

them. But the idea that we don't need it in this term is quite preposterous. It doesn't work. We need it more and more.

AMANPOUR: Talking about issues of reform, as you know, the United States, particularly the Trump administration, and that led to the DOGE attack to

dismantle USAID, that there was waste, that there was corruption, that there were bad actors. Some of that is true.

Can you tell me from your experience, I don't know whether you can talk about USAID, but certainly the U.N., there's plenty of complaints about how

the U.N. is inefficient, bulky and doesn't do what it's meant to do in an efficacious way. What can you tell us about that and how it should be

reformed, short of cutting it off at the knees?

GRIFFITHS: Yes, it's very true. And it's the ghastly shadow that hangs over anybody in humanitarian agencies, because they know this is true. And

it's difficult to answer. The first answer should be that I, for example, back in my day, should have made cuts or suggested cuts to agencies before

we got to the crisis of the election of the second term for President Trump. That's the first answer.

[13:15:00]

The second answer is about something which is beyond efficiency, but it's about vision and doing the right thing in a new and different way. Much

more difficult, we have to be very careful seen real evidence of that coming out of the reform process. And really, really important, because I

think we all know we're bloated, to be honest.

AMANPOUR: So, why didn't you? Just to stop you there, you said I should have done. Why didn't you?

GRIFFITHS: I suppose I was blind. You know, I suppose I was blind to the prospect of what was going to happen. I don't think many of us realized

there were going to be such swinging cuts in the U.S. after the election. I suppose I was probably, this is no excuse, busy trying to respond to

crises.

AMANPOUR: So, what does the next SG and the current head of OCHA, Tom Fletcher, have to do?

GRIFFITHS: They have to do what I think is now painfully obvious, which is to go beyond efficiencies and to go to vision. And there are things that I

think that if we can talk about both of them, but in this context, that need to be changed in the U.N. when it comes to crisis management. So, you

need drama and courage and you only get that from the top.

The only reason I was allowed a free hand with the Black Sea Grain Initiative was because it was Gutierrez who conceived it and he called me

every single day to make sure it was good.

AMANPOUR: The current SG?

GRIFFITHS: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Whose term is expiring?

GRIFFITHS: That's right. Sorry, the SG then. He made it his own. Now, you have to make all of them your own. In the secretary general's office. And I

think for Tom, he has a slightly different issue, but he'll be working with all that. And for Tom, and I know he's doing a lot of thinking about this.

It's about making sure that what the emergency response of the agencies is in tandem with, not duplicating, but is in tandem with political diplomacy.

The word I used to get from the colleagues in the field before I left in 24, from humanitarian colleagues in the field is, we're still alone out

here. We want many more political diplomats. And if they're not from the U.N., then from others to help do what every humanitarian wants, which is

to end the war rather than mitigate it.

AMANPOUR: Martin Griffiths, thank you very much indeed.

GRIFFITHS: Thanks, Christiane.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Coming up, celebrating 40 years of Paul Simon's masterpiece, Graceland. My 2018 conversation with the man who created a soundtrack for

the American experience. That's up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:20:00]

AMANPOUR: Now, he's the singer-songwriter who has defined decades of music across genres and generations. Paul Simon first found global fame as one

half of Simon and Garfunkel, with classics like "Bridge Over Troubled Water" before forging a groundbreaking solo career.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Graceland initially sparked backlash as Simon made it in apartheid South Africa during a cultural boycott, but it quickly became

revered as a masterpiece. Now, 84 years old, Simon hasn't stopped traveling the world on yet another tour. Of course, in 2018 he had declared he was on

a farewell tour following the release of his album "In the Blue Light." That's when I met him at his office in New York. We got off to an

improvised start.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PAUL SIMON, SINGER-SONGWRITER: I do this as overdubs. But look at the size of this.

AMANPOUR: That is amazing. And on that note, can we start our conversation?

SIMON: Let us. Let's begin.

AMANPOUR: Because I want to ask you what that is. Is it a throwback?

SIMON: Yes, I guess you could say a throwback. When I first came into contact with this in Nashville, I used it on the "Boxer" with Simon and

Garfunkel.

AMANPOUR: I mean, these songs are legendary and they've been going for more than 50 years, the, "Boxer," "Sounds of Silence," "Bridge Over

Trouble," all those classics and it's as if they were written yesterday, they still mean so much to so many people. Are you surprised by that?

SIMON: Absolutely, absolutely. I think I was 22 years old when I wrote the "Sound of Silence" I think because I closed -- when I did the last

performance on this final tour, the last song that I sang was the "Sound of Silence" and I thought, how at 22 did this even happen? I don't know -- I

didn't know. Same with "Bridge Over Troubled Water," I've said this before, I wrote the song and when it was finished, I said, "That's better than I

usually do."

And -- but what I've come to realize over time because there have been a few other songs that are in this category, "Graceland" would be in this

category, where you feel as if you're a conduit and the song is coming through you, you're shaping it but you're absolutely surprised at what's

happening and you don't know why and you don't know where our it comes from but I recognize that that happens sometimes and it's led me to be a more

spiritual person because of the mystery of it.

AMANPOUR: Let's talk about "Graceland" because that was one of your solo triumphs, you've had many after Simon and Garfunkel but that was yet

another departure for you, yet another break out and the music was spectacular and your singers and musicians were amazing. But there was a

political controversy, wasn't there?

They were angry members of the ANC, they said you shouldn't have broken the boycott on apartheid South Africa and why were you going there. What do you

think about that all these years later?

SIMON: I think they were completely disingenuous about it. I don't -- first of all, we didn't break any boycott, there was no rule about

recording with Black South African musicians. First of all, the musicians voted whether they wanted me to come or not. I didn't know that but I found

out later on that they vote -- that they had voted.

What they wanted to know, the musicians was, how much are we going to be paid and will we get credit. And so, that was easy, you know. Of course,

they were going to credit and royalties and I paid them, at that time, what was -- I think was triple scale of what you would be paid in New York. So,

I think it came out to be like maybe $600 for a three-hour session. They were making like $15 for a day.

[13:25:00]

So, everybody was perfectly happy. Nobody particularly thought that we were going to have a hit, you know. A lot of those guys didn't know who I was.

And my experience with traveling around the world is that artists are -- particularly musicians are perhaps the most insightful in describing what a

culture and a country is like, and they talk to everybody and they talk to other musicians from other countries. And like Hugh Masekela who was on the

"Graceland" tour, he was my great teacher about South African politics.

AMANPOUR: When you came back to the United States you were at Howard University.

SIMON: Yes.

AMANPOUR: You remember that. And this guy at Howard University, again, you, to your credit, taking them on and engaging them in this criticism

they had they thought this guy that you didn't have any right to take the music, the musicians that, you know, you didn't give them enough credit.

Anyway, this is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How can you justify going there, taking all of this music from his country is nothing but stealing? It ain't nothing but

stealing. How can you just go and tell me, oh, I went there and I was --

SIMON: "Graceland" is a collaboration. Don't you -- you don't believe that it's possible to have a collaboration? Do you believe that a collaboration

is possible between musicians?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Between you and them, no.

SIMON: Why?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You don't understand.

SIMON: Why, because I'm white and they're South African?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. You don't understand the music at all.

SIMON: Well, you are saying something that they, these musicians, in fact, disagree with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIMON: Well, I was completely unprepared for that attack to come. And -- but again, as it turns out, they were members of a political party called

Azania, on the far left of the constellation of many political parties in South Africa. They were the most violent. I only learned about this because

Ladysmith Black Mambazo who became beloved all over the world and still perform to this day --

AMANPOUR: And of course, Joseph Shabalala who is the leader, you remember.

SIMON: Of course.

AMANPOUR: He said that hugging you was the first time he had ever hugged a white man and he was really taken by it, that he just always remembered

that.

SIMON: Joseph was -- he's almost angelic. He was very -- well, he's very spiritual man and was very aware of what could be accomplished with the

music from "Graceland" and what could be accomplished in the context of helping Black South Africans.

It's very hard to get to choose but musicians will often bring it on a level that goes right to the heart. It's really true that music is the

universal language. It's a cliche but that happens to be true.

AMANPOUR: So, how do you feel then after all these years of telling that truth through your music, through your woods of retiring and not doing live

performances anymore? You just gave your last concert in Corona, correct, very not far from where you were raised, where you grew up. What was it

like? What was it like singing but -- and performing but knowing this was the last time you were going to deliver that truth?

SIMON: Well, first of all, I don't intend for it to be my last performance. I just intend for it to be the last time that I go on tour. I

would like to -- and I anticipate that I will perform again after a while - - after taking a break. But I'd like to do it for specific causes and I'd like to do it for my own pleasure in concert halls and have pristine sound

and with perhaps different musicians that I admire and play a repertoire that is different from what I've been playing.

Because as you said before, some of these songs I've been playing for 30, 40 years. I wouldn't play a song if I didn't like it. So, it's not that I

dislike them, but I'm ready to say, I've examined this music as much as I can. And I think it would be good for me to stop and think for a while as

much as I can.

[13:30:00]

And I think it would be good for me to stop and think for a while, listen to music again, read, travel, stop, and then see what happens. You know, a

thought comes into my -- a musical thought comes into my head through all these years, and I say, oh, how does that become a song? Now, I say, no,

don't solve it that way. Just leave it alone. Let's just see what happens.

I already have -- not that I actually believe in this. I don't believe in legacy. Well, I mean, I don't believe that there's any importance to it,

put it that way. Of course, people have legacies. But I've already left a great deal of my thinking. I just turned 77. So, I've already left my

thinking through these songs that, you know, some of which are very, very well known. So, it's good to stop and see what else could I -- what else

will I think of, or maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just take a rest.

AMANPOUR: Are you tired?

SIMON: Yes, I'm tired. I'm not physically tired. I'm mentally tired in a way that I don't know how to explain exactly. It's not like I couldn't do

another album now at the same qualitative level as I've done the last two, three albums, which I think are as good as I've -- as I can do, as I've

ever been. I think I could do that. But I'm not sure that that's the most interesting choice for me. I think that there might be something that could

be more interesting, but I don't know what it is.

AMANPOUR: So, what -- I mean, can I ask you, what is your favorite song? Do you have a favorite song?

SIMON: Of all time?

AMANPOUR: Of all time.

SIMON: No, I don't. No, I don't. But I do enjoy singing, you know, some of the ones that are, I really do enjoy singing "The Boxer," or I really do

enjoy singing "The Sound of Silence." On this last tour, I finally found a way of singing "Bridge Over Troubled Water" that was neither like the Simon

and Garfunkel recording, which is really Art Garfunkel's masterpiece vocal, but I found a way of singing it that allowed me to say, oh, yes, I wrote

that, I wrote that song. That's "Bridge Over Troubled Water," and I wrote it.

AMANPOUR: I think you said about "Bridge Over Troubled Water" that when you were writing it, you realized that it was exceptional.

SIMON: Yes, I thought it was, yes, better. It was better than I usually did, and it came -- it flowed the way I described earlier, as if it came

through me.

AMANPOUR: And obviously, it's part of the Simon and Garfunkel legacy. Will you ever make peace with each other?

SIMON: Oh, I think we could, yes. That's -- I don't know how to, you know, even approach that. There's too much damage that was done. You know, but

it's like somebody that I've known since I'm 11. So, I understand. You know, I understand why -- I think I understand why it happened, but I think

it's best to stay away just for safety's sake. And so, I do.

You know, we've tried -- we came and did several reunion tours, and especially the one where the Everly Brothers joined us. They were a

pleasure, but not always, you know. It's just -- it doesn't work. What can I say? It doesn't work. It's really not unusual in duos or groups. If they

do stay together, this kind of groups, they're just there for the money, you know. It's not about -- it's not because there's a musical reason to

stay together.

[13:35:00]

And I think the Beatles left -- broke up, because they were -- I think they were finished as a musical entity.

AMANPOUR: And finally, you know, you talk about taking a rest and doing other things, but you're very, very involved, for instance, in the

environment, and that's one of your big political, social, cultural missions, right?

SIMON: Yes. I really think that the number one priority for all of us should be the environment. I think we've damaged the environment to a

degree that's so dangerous that we might be talking about an extinction of life on the planet. And all of these other concerns that we have, human

rights, human rights, racism, sexism, gender equality, xenophobia, what -- all the problems that humans have, they're all human problems. But if we

don't ensure that the planet continues to nourish us in the way that it has for hundreds of thousands of years, all those problems will be moot,

because there won't be any life. And I feel just really guilty about the fact that I'm leaving this to my children and their children.

The tour before last, I gave all of the money to the Half Earth Foundation, Edward Wilson's foundation. On the last tour that I did, every city that I

played, I would leave a small amount, $25,000, as a thank you, to say thank you, first of all. Thank you. That's what I was doing, and I'm trying to

leave it as like a trail of breadcrumbs through the forest, so that, you know, people would, if they were following it, would join. That's what I

think is the most important thing to do. And when I do begin to perform again, that's where I'll give all of the proceeds from whatever.

AMANPOUR: That's a great legacy and a great promise and a great mission. Paul Simon, thank you very much indeed.

SIMON: Thank you. It was lovely to talk with you.

AMANPOUR: And you too.

SIMON: Nice to meet you too.

AMANPOUR: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And the "Graceland" legacy continues. There's a new book about its cultural impact, and a film about making the album is currently being

shot in South Africa.

Coming up, have some cities in the United States gone too far in their fight against drugs? The Atlantic's Michael Powell breaks down the policies

causing controversy on America's streets. After the break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:00]

AMANPOUR: The number of drug overdose deaths in the United States has fallen sharply in recent years. That is being linked in part to the

adoption of harm reduction policies, which prioritize the health and well- being of drug users rather than criminalizing them. While effective in some American and Canadian cities, the Atlantic staff writer Michael Powell says

it has also adversely encouraged public drug use in other cities. And he shares his observations with Walter Isaacson.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Michael Powell, welcome to the show.

MICHAEL POWELL, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Thank you. My pleasure.

ISAACSON: You have a very provocative piece. And The Atlantic is called "The Cities that Said Yes to Drugs." It's about the whole issue of harm

reduction. Explain to me what harm reduction is.

POWELL: Sure. I mean, harm reduction was born of an inarguable, it seems to me, humanitarian impulse. It began during with drug users during the

time of the AIDS epidemic. So, that would be the late '80s and the early '90s. And there was a great concern to keep them from, that is drug

addicts, from sharing needles. Because that was obviously a very easy way to spread AIDS.

So, they started needle exchanges where they would go around, that is activists the like, and take dirty needles, give clean needles. And there's

absolutely no doubt that that kept a lot of people alive and gave you a chance to get them into drug treatment and the like. Over time, that's

metamorphosed into a much kind of grander project, which is to set up injection sites where people can legally take their drugs and inject heroin

or meth or fentanyl.

And it's also led to a big push not to have any legal consequences for people. The whole notion of sort of meeting people where they are. That is

to say, if you're a drug addict, don't come in and try to convince them to go into treatment or that they should give up their drugs and their works.

Meet them where they are and that it's kind of not our business, that is society at large, to tell them what they can and can't do.

ISAACSON: It seems if you allow this, there's a certain contempt for the working-class and middle class. People have to deal with it. And then they

get stigmatized, I'll say, by objecting to having to walk through open-air drug markets. Do you think part of this was an elite sort of condescension

to the middle class and working-class people who didn't like having this in their neighborhoods?

POWELL: Simply put, yes. I mean, and that's actually what drew me to writing about this. I had seen what had happened in another city I looked

at in Burlington, Vermont because go up -- my family is from up there going back some generations. And I had seen the transformation of a number of

kind of working-class neighborhoods in Burlington to places where drug use was open, it was happening on porches and cemeteries and churches.

And yes, I mean, I think that lost in the notion of meeting an addict where they are is how about meeting a neighborhood or a city where it is.

ISAACSON: And your piece, it starts, I think, your piece with Seattle, Little Saigon. Tell me about what happens when it hits Seattle and what the

reaction there has been.

POWELL: Seattle is a place, it's very -- its politics are very left liberal. It's not to blame. I mean, there are people of left liberal

politics who are not happy with this, with the current situation. But certainly, the dominant ethos there was, again, this kind of mix of --

excuse me, left politics and libertarian politics.

[13:45:00]

And the notion that you might say, go to Little Saigon, where I counted 250 people using and dealing in a one block area. And not just move people

away, but frankly, you know, say, look, we could do one of two things. We can arrest and jail you, which doesn't really serve any particular purpose,

or we could go into -- we could -- you could sign up for drug treatment and we're going to help you get into that. And there's actually been a fair

amount of success with that in some other cities. That's not happened in Seattle.

So, as a result, you have this terrible situation where you have, as I say, 250 people in one block. I saw three women lying flat on the ground,

breathing imperceptibly. Fentanyl is an enormously dangerous drug. I ran around the corner. There's a beautiful new park that they had just opened

up for the, really for the Vietnamese community. And there were, I counted there, about 25 users. And again, no -- you know, not a kid in sight. So,

it's a grim situation.

And I could play this -- you know, we could sort of play this out geographically and go around Seattle. There's probably 15, 20 places just

as badly hit.

ISAACSON: Well, wait. Personalize it for me about, you know, the people, middle class, working-class people there. There was a story about a woman

on a bus with her six-year-old. That personalized for her. Tell me that story.

POWELL: I saw her, this young woman, a mother, waiting for the bus. So, I walked across the street from the park to talk with her. And I asked her,

you know, what do you make of this? First, she was one of the people I asked, well, do you ever use the park? And she looked at me like I had lost

my mind. And then she told me this same bus stop some weeks earlier, she had had her six-year-old daughter with her. They'd gotten on the bus. And

she smelled something. I mean, she smelled fentanyl being smoked. And she panicked. You know, and she looked around. Her daughter has asthma. So, she

was going to be sensitive to the smoking to begin with.

But fentanyl is an enormously dangerous drug. So, being in an enclosed area with somebody with fentanyl terrified her. She screamed at the person, you

know, what are you doing? And then she screamed at the bus driver to say, please stop the bus, let me get off. And she did. And it left her

terrified. And when she called the city to say, look, this is going on, they sent a, they have these teams, community response teams. And this

particular team went up and ended up handing out safe drug use -- you know, safe drug use kits that give like tinfoil and a pipe and this sort of

thing. So, yes, it's -- in a very real way, it keeps people locked in their homes.

ISAACSON: But in 2023, didn't Seattle start pushing back on some of this politically? And what are they doing now? And is that changing things?

POWELL: That's the strange thing with Seattle is they seem to have this, you know, reaction, right? I mean, to this politically. And they elected a

very moderate Republican city attorney. They had a -- well, a woman who would be classified as safely liberal in most cities in America, but not in

Seattle, was the head of the city council. And they started to make, I think, some interesting progress.

And again, neither of them were, you know, classically what we think of as drug war, you know, lock people up, put them away. I mean, no. But they

were saying that, look, we need to kind of combine carrot and stick here. We need to start taking some efforts to reclaim streets and parks. And they

were making some real progress.

And in the last election, both of them were defeated by people who are strongly in favor of the harm reduction policies that Seattle had put in

place before.

ISAACSON: So, wait. Why does the population -- you're saying this really is hurting working-class people, why would the population say, hey, we

don't want to be too tough on people using drugs?

POWELL: It's a great question and one I ask myself a lot. And I think what -- you know, one of its complicated answer.

[13:50:00]

I mean, a lot of the polling there shows that people are concerned about crime, which often comes down to drugs and drug trade and also

prostitution, which is related to drugs and the drug trade.

At the same time, the public is a quite wealthy city. And the politics are very much in kind of upper-middle class politics and also upper-middle

class and lefty. So, you know, lefty can be also young college students, post college. And that group, to a certain extent, still very much kind of

dominates the elections there.

So, when you looked at, you know, where these reformers had been -- where they had been, you know, strongest and stuff, that was in more working-

class neighborhoods. And, yes, I mean, I -- but having said that, I don't - - you know, my answer is incomplete here because it's not just working- class people that suffer. I mean, there's been any number of parks where for the longest time Seattle's reaction when you would get, say, a tent

encampment of 30, 40, 50 and big encampments. And they're all using drugs and they're all they're dealing and using and stuff was to close off the

park. I mean, quite literally put up a fence around the park.

And so, OK, I guess. I mean, you've prevented them from camping there, but you've also prevented people from using the very beautiful parks in

Seattle. So, it's a conundrum as I look there as to what's going on.

ISAACSON: If you are in Seattle and somebody walks up to you, they're homeless, they're living on the streets, drug addicted. They say, OK, I

want out. I want to do something. What's the process? How hard would it be? Could they immediately get treatment and get a bed?

POWELL: That's a great question. And I mean, and, you know, the answer is probably mixed. I mean, there certainly are -- and I know the groups, in

fact, several of the groups I talked with who work with these folks and who argue these are nonprofits strongly, that there are ways to get them help,

but that the city shows little or no interest in doing so.

Now, if they were really successful, if they if the city made a commitment, you know, we're going to move as many people as we can into treatment.

Sure, they could end up, I suppose, you know, in a place where they don't have enough treatment beds. But right now, that isn't the problem there

right now. The problem is the resistance of the political culture to, if you will, kind of embrace the true nature of the disaster that they're

facing on the streets.

ISAACSON: You cite more than 7,000 overdose deaths in Seattle from 2016 to 2025. Yet West Virginia, with an even smaller population and no drug

decriminalization. In other words, they don't follow these policies. They recorded nearly 10000 overdose deaths. What does that suggest to you?

POWELL: Well, it suggests to me, I mean, that -- which has been true for decades now, alas, that in West Virginia, the drug levels of drug addiction

and hopelessness are extraordinary. They also have very high rates of suicides.

So, I mean, it's a -- if you go to some of these towns, I mean, they're quite run down and the dealers are very easily seen. I mean, I don't

pretend to be an expert in West Virginia, but I would say that, you know, it's hard to look at a place like Seattle, San Francisco, Burlington. These

are pretty well to do places and think, well, you know, do you really want to like, you know, compare yourself, say, well, you know, maybe the worst-

off place in America in terms of income and the like is a little bit worse than we are?

So, I'm not -- yes. I mean, Seattle is a is a one of the five wealthiest cities in America. And so, it's awfully hard to argue that, you know, it

has no other choice than the one it's made.

ISAACSON: One of the things Donald Trump, when he signed an executive order about a year ago, said that most people who are street homeless

people living on the streets, encampments have drug issues and they should be put in drug treatment. Is that right?

POWELL: You know, I think it is. I mean, look, there's two things, particularly street homelessness. There's very high rates of mental and

emotional illness. And there are very high rates of drug use.

[13:55:00]

So, to the extent that you can get these folks into the system, right, I mean, into the system being, you know, in treatment with treatment, they're

going to start getting their, you know, whatever mental illness problems they might have addressed. It's going to be a net positive. And that's a --

it's interesting. It strikes me that's a largely liberal vision of how you do this, right? And somehow that's been flipped on its head and seen as a

reactionary approach. And that's I think what's been so puzzling at looking at this.

ISAACSON: Michael Powell, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

POWELL: Thanks very much. Great talking with you, Walter.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. And remember, you

can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]

END