Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Sudanese Political Analyst Kholood Khair; Interview with World Food Programme Executive Director Cindy McCain; Interview with "Radio Free Afghanistan" Author Saad Mohseni; Interview with The Atlantic Staff Writer and "On the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, Democracy" Author Jerusalem Demsas. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 13, 2024 - 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.
One of the world's worst humanitarian catastrophes. 25 million people in Sudan require urgent aid after more than a year of conflict. Sudanese
analyst Kholood Khair joins me.
And with famine like conditions in the country leaving millions hungry and desperate, I'll speak to the head of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAAD MOHSENI, AUTHOR, "RADIO FREE AFGHANISTAN": We are, in a way, the canary in the coal mine. Because as long as we continue, it means that
women can say things. They can appear in front of the camera.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- pushing the boundaries of media in Afghanistan. Christiane's conversation with the author of "Radio Free Afghanistan," Saad Mohseni.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JERUSALEM DEMSAS, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC AND AUTHOR, "ON THE HOUSING CRISIS: LAND, DEVELOPMENT, DEMOCRACY": I think about housing as the
fundamental building block of the economy and of people's lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Atlantic staff writer Jerusalem Demsas speaks to Hari Sreenivasan about America's housing shortage.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York sitting in for Christiane Amanpour. Sudan is living through a nightmare and the
world needs to wake up and help. Those words from the head of the World Health Organization who visited the country in the grips of a raging
humanitarian crisis, one of the world's worst.
Around 25 million people are in dire need of aid, but the WHO says it has less than a quarter of the funding they need to provide it. The true number
is hard to pin down, but anywhere between 15,000 to 150,000 people have been killed since the war broke out between rival generals in early 2023.
Now, over 10 million people are displaced, famine is stalking parts of North Darfur, millions are without safe drinking water, and 19 million
children are out of school.
Well, Kholood Khair is a Sudanese researcher and political analyst, and joins the program live for us. Kholood, thank you so much for taking the
time. As we note, this is one of the world's worst humanitarian crises 25 million people, as we note, are in dire need of aid. 10 million people have
been displaced. A wide range in numbers and figures as to what the actual death toll is.
You describe it as a crisis with no off switch. Give us a sense of what you are hearing from people on the ground, what they are telling you now over a
year into this horrific war.
KHOLOOD KHAIR, SUDANESE POLITICAL ANALYST: I think people recognize that this war has gotten very bad very quickly. There was no sort of gradual
dissent. This war started off in Khartoum and it was the capital that was hit first and hit hardest in a very centralized state. That means very
immediately we started to see, you know, the education sector, the health sector, the food supply sector, all of them break down and state collapse
is happening really right in front of our eyes.
People all recognize that regardless of the politics of this, of what happens between the different armed groups, particularly the Sudanese Armed
Forces and the RSF, it is they who are feeling the brunt of this. They've lost their homes, they've lost their possessions, they've lost their
livelihoods, they've lost their dignity, and there's a very real sense that things will get infinitely worse as starvation sets in very many areas
across the country.
GOLODRYGA: And what I hear in terms of what can bring this fighting to an end is that neither side feels that they are vulnerable enough in a
position to surrender, to end the fighting. Both sides think they have still -- they're still in a position to continue to fight and win the
battle. What is the best way in your view that this war can come to an end? What needs to happen?
KHAIR: Well, Sudan has had many wars of various descriptions and various scales, and all of those wars, without exception, have ended in a political
settlement. None have been settled militarily. And this war is unlikely to be an exception, because even though, right now, the Rapid Support Forces
seem stronger, they have much better sophisticated weaponry, they are able to recruit very many people from both within Sudan and across the Sahel,
and they're able to position themselves very strongly militarily. But there's no military win here for them. They don't have a governance plan.
They don't have an ability to win hearts and minds. The Sudanese Armed Forces, on the other hand, is also unable to win back as much territory as
it's losing.
And so, very clearly, both of these sides need to then come to some kind of political arrangement. The fear here is that both of these sides will come
up with the similar kind of political and peace agreements that we've seen before, basically power sharing or wealth sharing, and will not really
address any of the real existing issues in the country or, indeed, address the -- what people want to see, which is a civilian democratic Sudan.
[13:05:00]
As this is very much a counter revolutionary war, the generals are fighting themselves, but they're also fighting the proponents of the revolution. We
can tell that at some point, even if they tire, even if they get into what is called a hurting stalemate, they would much rather make a deal between
themselves to maintain some kind of control over the economy and over resources rather than hand over power to a civilian democratic government,
which is exactly what the people of Sudan have been calling for since at least 2018.
GOLODRYGA: And it's been described, as we've covered here on this show, as a forgotten war. So, much of the world's attention has been focused on the
war in Ukraine, on the war in Gaza. And yet, we know here the death toll -- we don't even have an estimate for the death toll in this crisis. It's
being described as one of the worst in history.
Though the U.S. has appointed an envoy to the region. And even analysts would argue that the U.S. has done more than other countries at this point.
What more, in your view, can the U.S. alone do right now? Because we've seen over the last year, really, an alliance of strange bedfellows
supporting both sides.
KHAIR: Well, Sudan has become something of a carcass where all of these different international actors are picking at it. And most of these
international actors are U.S. allies. So, the question here isn't what can the U.S. do alone, in fact, the very kernel of that question is wrong. The
U.S. cannot do this alone. It has to work with its allies to mitigate the impact of their allies on this region.
You have Egypt, a very key strategic ally for the U.S. supporting the Sudanese Armed Forces and another key strategic ally, the United Arab
Emirates, supporting the RSF. Neither of these have significantly committed to any kind of peace process because they are too busy effectively looting
in the case of the UAE and in the case of Egypt, trying to control and manage the conflict rather than resolve it.
We're seeing this also with the Saudi Arabia, and Israel, though it is otherwise engaged, is also implicated in this, as are non-U.S. allies like
Iran and Russia. The fear here is that as this war moves increasingly into the proxy like characteristics, it will be very difficult to move towards a
peaceful resolution anytime soon. And we could see, like Sudan's other wars, decades long conflict.
GOLODRYGA: The UAE has denied its support for the RSF. As you note, the RSF has gained control of the Darfur area and much of Khartoum, the
capital, as well. And what seems to be a bit puzzling is that among the two, both warring factions have committed numerous war crimes that have
been documented. But specifically, the RSF is not popular at all among the Sudanese.
So, in terms of envisioning what a day after could look like, it appears that there's no likelihood that the Sudanese people would accept an RSF
leadership.
KHAIR: Absolutely.
GOLODRYGA: RSV, sorry.
KHAIR: And I think this is very true and I think the RSF is recognizing that without a governance plan, without a campaign to win hearts and minds,
with the looting that we've seen, with the sexual abuse -- the rampant sexual abuse we have seen, with the genocidal attacks that we have seen in
Darfur and other areas, there's very little chance of them winning.
And this actually makes them winning hearts and minds, and this actually makes them very, very dangerous. It means that they will pursue a sort of
position within a ruling system at any cost, mostly to avoid any kind of accountability and transitional justice measures.
So, what we have to do here, really, is instead of seeking a ceasefire, which is where all of the international communities' energies have gone, we
need to figure out how to make the revolutions call -- come to -- come into, you know, manifest, which is that the Sudanese Armed Forces should be
reformed and the RSF should be disbanded.
Now, how we do that becomes the question. I think trying to find peace between them is not going to happen. The conditions for it are not right,
that both sides are signaling very strongly that they have no interest in a ceasefire that they both see as a military solution. And so, we should be
investing in protection of civilians, we should be investing in humanitarian aid to make sure people are alive long enough to see the Sudan
that we want to see.
And at the same time, make sure that we invest in figuring out how to reform the Sudanese Armed Forces and make sure that we get to a stage where
we can disband the RSF so they don't continue to wreak havoc in the country.
GOLODRYGA: We'll talk more with Cindy McCain from the World Food Programme about getting that humanitarian assistance where it's needed most. But
specifically, as it comes to the RSF, we know that they are not following or engaging in any rules of war. In fact, they're violating them. They're
looting hospitals. It is very difficult to get aid to the people there in the territory that they now hold.
They've also been accused of sexual violence and rape, gender-based violence. These are weapons of war that they are accused of using in Darfur
some 20 plus years ago. What more can the African Union do specifically, because the African Union at this part -- at this point, has expelled
Sudan, but the SAF still holds a seat in representing the country at the U.N.? So, what can the African Union, if anything, do in terms of doing
more?
[13:10:00]
KHAIR: Well, the African Union suspended Sudan's membership after the coup in 2021, not since this war began. I think the African Union has done very,
very little in trying to mitigate any of the sort of the fallouts of the war, but also in trying to find a resolution. Initially, it was caught up
in this tug of war, if you will, between with the IGAD regional group.
And so, now, it needs to really very quickly that now after it has appointed a panel, move very quickly on the protection agenda. I think that
is where the African Union can provide the most value right now. If they're able to push forward a protection agenda and look at options of deploying
protection of civilian's troops that would actually allow it to play a much more impactful role than trying to figure out some kind of ceasefire
between the generals.
So, far, many African countries are also implicated in supporting either one side or the other, most of them favoring the Rapid Support Forces, not
out of any love for the RSF necessarily, but because they have a very long history with the Sudanese Armed Forces, and they have a lot of baggage that
has gone unresolved.
So, the African Union has to move beyond these regional issues and it has to be able to move towards a strategy that actually puts the people of
Sudan first and not the generals. So, far, we haven't seen any institution, regional or international, that has done that.
GOLODRYGA: What role have we seen, specifically, Iran play more of -- in this war? Who are they helping with -- who are they helping at this point?
KHAIR: They are -- there are very numerous incredible reports that the Iranians are supporting the Sudanese Armed Forces. The Iran wants a
position on the Red Sea. It wants some kind of presence on the Red Sea. Right now, it has some presence with the Houthis in the southern eastern
part of the Red Sea, and it would like very much a place more northwards on the western bank of the Red Sea.
And because of that they very and they're very much want to engage with the Sudanese Armed Forces, a group that they have had a long history with since
at least the Iranian Revolution in 1979. And so, they're very much backing the Sudanese Armed Forces.
Now, they, the Sudanese Armed Forces, say that they're not engaging with Iran. They know that this puts off the Americans. They know that this puts
off the Israelis. But they are in a position with so few friends in the region, so few friends they can rely on to really engage with whomever they
can, Iran, Russia, et cetera.
And the -- you know, the Iranians recently have been found by a report from Human Rights Watch to be supplying Mohajer-6 drones, quite sophisticated
drones to the Sudanese Armed Forces as early as sort of earlier this year. This support looks likely to continue even if the Sudanese Armed Forces
aren't able to grant Iran a port or some kind of military base on the Red Sea. And it's -- we're also starting to see the proxy elements of this,
sort of Iran supporting SAF versus the UAE supporting the RSF really take primacy in this war.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. As you note, Sudan has a 500-mile border on the Red Sea, making it strategically vital in that region. Kholood, in terms of what the
future may look like, can you paint any picture of somewhat optimism that you foresee in the months and years to come?
KHAIR: I think those of us who watch Sudan pretty closely, who have family, who have friends there, they know there's a lot of developments on
a daily basis that are actually quite depressing and it can be quite a difficult, you know, sort of set of developments to contend with.
The one bright spot has been the way that communities have grouped together to provide support for each other, to provide sort of humanitarian
corridors for each other, to provide food. Food kitchens have been set up all across the country, particularly in urban areas, and they have been a
lifeline for people.
And so, these people have basically, because as you say, this war has been forgotten by many people around the world, have relied on themselves. Now,
I don't think that should continue. As much as possible the world needs to know that it is concerned with the future of Sudanese people. But in many
ways, it is the Sudanese people that are doing this themselves.
And by providing for each other in the vacuum of humanitarian support, they are weaving together the social fabric that is being ripped apart by this
war, especially along ethnic lines, especially along regional lines, and really recreating those community ties that would have otherwise really
made this a much more difficult war to go through for those on the ground.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Kholood Khair, thank you so much for your time, for your expertise. We will continue to cover this war and make sure it is not
forgotten.
KHAIR: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: We appreciate the time. Well, the U.N. says that Sudan is the world's largest hunger crisis, and the head of the World Food Program,
Cindy McCain, says that they urgently need better access to those at risk of starvation and more money, calling it nearly a forgotten crisis.
Cindy McCain joins us now from Rome. And welcome to the program, Cindy.
CINDY MCCAIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: Thank you.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: It is it is disheartening to continue to refer to this as a forgotten war, a forgotten crisis, but just judging by this figure, 25
million people now facing acute hunger. It's very difficult to get aid where it needs to be. That is really a bleak but honest assessment of where
things stand now, a year in -- over a year into this war.
The worst situation is in the Zamzam camp, home to some 400,000 displaced people. Would you agree with the assessment right now, and what more can
the world, the WFP, do to address this as soon as possible?
MCCAIN: Well, I certainly agree with the assessment, and I think it's even worse than that. We have not had unfettered and clean and secure access
into Sudan. We have -- as you know, ADRA Gate is open and so is Tine (ph), but it's inconsistent. And we also are facing a climate change issue with
regards to rains and flooding.
So, it's been very difficult for any of our trucks to get all the way through, especially to Zamzam and other places, because the roads are
washed out, the bridges are down. And so, we're left with doing the very best that we can, but under incredible circumstances. We have not had
access until just recently. Let's be very clear about that. And that's something that the United Nations and all of the agencies that are working
and trying to get into Sudan need to have. And it also needs to be safe and unfettered and with respect to humanitarian law.
GOLODRYGA: And we know that isn't the current situation. It is not safe, and it's not unfettered, and it's not in alliance with humanitarian law at
this point. Does the World Food Programme have an estimate as to how many people have died thus far from famine alone? Because some of these
estimates are quite shocking, two and a half million people even.
MCCAIN: I think right now it would be -- it wouldn't be the right thing to give an estimate. It's a lot. Because we can't have access. We haven't been
able to get in there to actually do the tallies and find out what exactly the numbers could represent.
We do know 25 million people are at risk here. As you know, across the borders in Chad and other -- South Sudan and other countries in the region,
they have absorbed almost 2 million people now, and they're doing their very best to make sure that those people are fed, but those countries are
stressed also.
So, the bottom line is here, we need the access, we need to get in now, and we need -- just like what your previous guest said, we need political help
to get -- to make sure we can help this crisis end so that we can get in and feed and save a generation of children who are starving to death.
GOLODRYGA: What are some of the biggest challenges in parts of the country that are most difficult to get aid into right now?
MCCAIN: Well, again, climate change with the flooding and the weather. Of course, we've had the various factions on the roads. They'll take and hold
our trucks up for weeks at a time. If we can get through, we can't make it all the way to the end.
We have near -- right now, we have nearly 40 trucks on the road and only two have made it to where they need to be going. So, I mean, this is what
we're up against. So, we should have been able to have gotten in earlier prior to the rains, that way we wouldn't be in this situation like this.
But nevertheless, here we are, and we need the world to pay attention to this, not only with their finances, but also with political solutions so
that this war Ends and we can feed people
GOLODRYGA: Throughout the course of this war, every expert that we've spoken with that is familiar with the region has come back with just
haunting stories, personal stories about the impact this has had on the Sudanese people. I'm wondering if there's anything in particular that has
stood out to you about those innocent people that have been caught up in this horrific war.
MCCAIN: Well, they're not there because they want to be. And because this is such a drastic situation, many of them are going to be faced with
migration. It's the days that I think -- I wake up and I think, how am I going to feed these people today? I will have to make the choice to take
food from the hungry to give to the starving. That's the kind of situation we're in right now. As a humanitarian agency and as U.N. agencies on a
whole too. So, it breaks my heart just to not be able to make the decision to be able to feed the way I should feed.
GOLODRYGA: We mentioned that both warring factions inside sides have been accused of committing war crimes. The RSF in particular though has been
reported to make things very difficult, very dangerous for aid workers to get in. They have been -- there have been reports of storming and looting
of hospitals, for example. How concerned are you about your workers, the people there that are trying their best to provide aid to people who are
needed most?
MCCAIN: Well, I'm very worried. As you know, there are close to 20, maybe more -- I've actually lost track of the number -- of U.N. aid workers,
they're being held hostage. One of them is a WFP worker.
[13:20:00]
Things are very dangerous there. And so, that's why we do need these political solutions and we need our various countries to come in, the
countries that Sudan will listen to and be able to negotiate with.
If this is a catastrophe, and it's not just for the country of Sudan, it's a regional catastrophe. It could have great implications with Europe and
other parts of the world because of the migration aspect to it. So, this is not all about food, it's also about, you know, the stability of the region.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, and there's also concern about disease as well. You mentioned the flooding there, outbreak of disease, especially cholera is a
big concern. We recently saw what has been deemed a successful campaign in Gaza for a pause in the fighting to vaccinate children in that enclave, and
they -- the WHO says that they believe that 90 percent of that -- of the estimated children there, they'd hope to immunize have, in fact, been
immunized, at least in the first stage. I'm wondering if there's anything you're optimistic about or you think you can learn from that campaign and
use in Sudan as well.
MCCAIN: Well, again, safe access. In the case of Gaza, they -- we have been able to get some of our trucks in, as you know, to carry the polio
vaccines. But let me say, as you know, WFP workers in -- were attacked not only in a car, they were shot, bullets hit 10 times into the car, didn't
kill anybody, thank God. And also, an airstrike took out the top floor of our guest house.
Humanitarian aid workers are being targeted. targeted. Respect for humanitarian law no longer exists. We have to change that. Otherwise, I
can't, in good conscience, leave my people in a country where it is totally unsafe and not be able to at least guarantee their safety and give them the
option to get out. And I don't want to have to do that, but I may have to.
GOLODRYGA: Are you saying -- I mean, I want to -- if we can just spend more time on that, does that give you pause? Are you concerned now about
the responsibility you bear in sending people into these war zones to provide this aid given what we've seen transpire?
MCCAIN: Well, this is our job. This is who we are. We're humanitarians and we work in the toughest spots. But of course, it is. Ultimately, I am
responsible. And so, I have to make the tough decisions. And if it looks like we can't handle our mandate and can't do the job that we're sending
there to do at scale, there -- we may have to consider pulling out.
But I don't want to do that. And I'm not suggesting I'm going to do it right away, but I just want you to know that's how dangerous this is.
GOLODRYGA: No doubt. Are you in contact with either officials from either warring factions, the SAF or RSF, when it comes to finding an opportunity
to make the delivery of aid as safe as possible in Sudan?
MCCAIN: Our people are, yes, on the ground. We have some people that work on the ground, but it's been very difficult because we've been restricted
as to where we could go. So, we have had our folks in Port Sudan dealing with the various factions and of course with the various politicos that are
in there.
And I have great hope. I mean, there, I do, have a little bit of hope that people are reasonable and will eventually be able to figure out what they
need to be doing for their own country and for their people before they starve to death.
GOLODRYGA: Cindy, you've talked about this before, this notion of donor fatigue. We have multiple hot wars going on around the world, sadly. The
U.S. is -- has appointed an envoy to Sudan. Obviously, much more can be done and is needed to be done to address this war and the humanitarian aid
that's needed in the country. But what is your message to those that are watching right now that may feel terrible about what's happening, but may
also question about where their money may go and maybe even experiencing some of that donor fatigue?
MCCAIN: Well, there has been donor fatigue, not with -- not just with WFP, but all across the board. If we don't pay attention to this this crisis
that's going on, and if we let it go or leave it to others who are not engaged, this will be a full-blown catastrophe that can affect the world.
This is the largest hunger crisis on the planet and has the -- could be the largest one ever in history.
So, we have to pay attention. And we as humanitarians pay very close attention to the fact that we not only how we can get in, when we can get
in, but most importantly, that we can get in. And that's what I'm asking the International Community to please do for us. Please work politically,
work behind the scenes, however it works, but help get us in at scale, please.
GOLODRYGA: Yes, the last thing we want to do is repeat history. As The Economist notes, it's almost certain to be as bad or worse, even, than the
crisis that afflicted Ethiopia in the 1980s.
[13:25:00]
Cindy McCain, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for the work that you're doing and thank you for your time.
MCCAIN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: Well, this week marks 23 years since the 9/11 attacks and America's subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. Following the overthrow of
the Taliban, Afghanistan opened up. Many Afghans returned and helped rebuild their country. Among them, Saad Mohseni, who created a media
company that pushed the boundaries of what people in Afghanistan saw and heard on both television and radio. Even now, after the Taliban's return,
his company continues to bravely report from inside the country.
Christiane spoke with Mohseni about his memoir and the struggle for a free and independent press in Afghanistan.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Saad Mohseni, welcome back to the program. So, you have just written this wonderful book, "Radio
Free Afghanistan." Is Afghanistan free? Is the radio free?
SAAD MOHSENI, AUTHOR, "RADIO FREE AFGHANISTAN": Relatively speaking, yes. Not as free as it was, but, you know, we still have an important role to
play in the country. Yes, as a matter of fact, I started writing this book assuming we will not be in Afghanistan. And it was a sort of a cathartic
experience.
AMANPOUR: We being your media company?
MOHSENI: Well, I mean, we sat together and we said we may not have a TV station. We may not have a radio station. So, let's tell the story of what
we did in 2002, expecting not to have anything in 2024. We still do. You've been there. You've seen it. We're still plugging away. But surprisingly,
it's not as good as it used to be. Let's put it this way.
AMANPOUR: It's not surprising, right? Because it's now fully obvious that this is Taliban 101 when it comes to freedom of expression, when it comes
to any kind of women and girls' rights. This is Taliban 101.
MOHSENI: Well, yes and no. I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that. In terms of decrees and directives, yes, it's the same Taliban. In
terms of implementation and execution, it's a little different. But there has to be a convergence at some stage. One has to catch up with the other.
Either they have to loosen the decrees and directives, or in terms of implementation, they go full -- you know, full on.
AMANPOUR: So, let's just, you know, dive into this in a slight order. So, basically, 2001, 9/11 happened. This has been commemorated 23 years later
as we speak this week. The U.S. and its allies come and they get rid of, in very short order, al Qaeda and their Taliban backers in Afghanistan. Enter
people like yourself who see this amazing opportunity, you come and create this incredible media company and bring, you know, product to Afghanistan
that they've never seen, at least not in decades.
What did you think would happen? What did you think would be the future of your operation, television, you know, all the stuff that you brought to
Afghanistan back? What did you think would be the long-lasting effect of it?
MOHSENI: I mean, it was sort of an accidental business. We set up this radio station, not -- you know, not really expecting it to succeed, it
succeeded.
AMANPOUR: What was it called?
MOHSENI: It was called Arman.
AMANPOUR: And that means?
MOHSENI: Arman means hope. So, we set up Arman, and then a TV station followed, a second TV station followed, and lo and behold, we had a dozen
media platforms in the country. So, it was very organic in the way that the business grew.
But I think what was extraordinary was how the people also changed. You know, the population has doubled in 20 odd years, and the median age is
still like 18. It's the youngest country outside of Sub-Saharan Africa. So, my hope is -- you know, we talk about the Taliban, but the country is a
changed country since the mid-1990s.
And my mom was just in Kabul and she pointed out that, for example, when you arrive the government officials who stamp your passports are all
ladies, for example. So, the conduct of the Taliban, you know, today in 2024, it's quite different to 2021. That they're more accepting of this
changed Afghanistan.
But, I mean, I'm not saying that it's going to last. But nonetheless, I think the Taliban are dealing with a very changed country.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just try to pick through that, because on the one hand, there was this edict as soon as they came in. Well, first, everybody
thought it was going to be new, touchy feely Taliban for the -- you know, for the 2020s. Clearly, it wasn't. But as you say, the place has changed.
History has moved on.
They did bring down edicts that women should not be in the public space, should not be working. And yet, as you say, great -- you know, stampers are
women. They did say when I was there, in your news organization, in your actual newsroom, that women, that very day, the edict came down, that women
had to now start to mask themselves, after 20 years of freedom on the air
[13:30:00]
They then allowed women to speak publicly. And now, the latest edict is even a woman's voice cannot be heard publicly. So, I don't know how that
affects your anchors and reporters. But how -- is there a contradiction?
MOHSENI: Well, the anchors continue. They're reporting on issues, they're presenting programs, they're producing, they're in front of the camera,
they're behind the camera. So that continues, for now. So, I think that the challenge is, you know, you've met some of the "pragmatists,"
quote/unquote, I wouldn't call them all that.
AMANPOUR: You mean the leaders?
MOHSENI: The leaders or pragmatic.
AMANPOUR: Yes, like Haqqani, yes.
MOHSENI: And others. Their views differ from the leadership.
AMANPOUR: You mean the religious leadership in Kandahar?
MOHSENI: Well, the leadership in Kandahar who are imposing these very draconian decrees. But at some stage, they need to step up because they
keep on telling people behind the scenes, we're different, this is a change to Afghanistan, the Taliban leader -- the Taliban government It's going to
reflect the new Afghanistan. But in reality, all these decrees, which are being introduced on a weekly basis, contradict that. But something has to
give.
AMANPOUR: I want to play a little soundbite, because it's kind of heartbreaking. You know, did this, amazing, amazing report from the
newsroom on that day. And the girls, the women were so, you know, determined. They were sad. They were scared, but determined your male --
their male colleagues went in solidarity with them on the air, put a mask over their face, the male -- you know, the news director was incredible and
a huge amount of support, but there was fear. This is hotter at one of the anchors. This is what she told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KHATERA, TOLONEWS ANCHOR (through translator): It's not clear. Even if we appear with the burka, maybe they will say that women's voices are
forbidden. They want women to be removed from the screen. They are afraid of an educated woman.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That was about two years ago, and she was right. She was right. They're afraid or they hate women or whatever it is, but they have
constantly encroached on that space.
MOHSENI: Absolutely. But we are, in a way, the canary in the coal mine, because as long as we continue, it means that women can say things. They
can appear in front of the camera. For how long? I'm not too sure. But I know that this particular -- these last decrees has been quite
controversial, even amongst the Taliban. And the discussions I've had with them is that, please continue, it's got to be business as usual.
AMANPOUR: They say that to you?
MOHSENI: They've said that to me and my colleagues in Kabul. I mean, senior people. So, we'll see.
AMANPOUR: So, they're kind of defying the Mullahs of Kandahar?
MOHSENI: For now. You know, they -- it's not a monolithic movement. And yet, they abide by the leadership. But as I said, something has to give.
AMANPOUR: And what will it be?
MOHSENI: I'm not sure.
AMANPOUR: Let's go back a little bit to your story. Your family left when the Soviets invaded in 19 --
MOHSENI: Before that.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MOHSENI: We left in '78.
AMANPOUR: OK.
MOHSENI: My father was posted to Tokyo. He was a diplomat. So, we moved in '78. And then the Russians invaded. And we stayed in Japan for two years
and then we immigrated to Australia.
AMANPOUR: Did you ever think you'd go back to Afghanistan?
MOHSENI: I think we always did, yes.
AMANPOUR: So, when you came back after 9/11, what were your feelings, what were your thoughts about what was possible? Firstly, why did you choose
media? And secondly, tell our audience, remind us, you know, you did Afghan Star, you had, you know, reality shows with Mullahs, with the religious and
stuff like that. You did try to bring them together.
MOHSENI: Yes, I mean, we -- well, we were very enthusiastic, obviously. We wanted to do all of the above. So, we did sports and reality shows, music
shows, soap operas, all of those things. And the important thing for us was to build capacity, to let Afghans produce these programs, which I think we
were quite good at. And media has been one of Afghanistan's great success stories.
AMANPOUR: I think the International Community is completely at a loss as to how to deal with the Taliban. You know, correct statements about the
unacceptability of a gender apartheid, as many activists are calling it, of a misogynistic, it's the worst place in the world for women right now. It's
the only place where actual high school girls cannot go to school. It's the only place in the world. Certainly, the only place in the Islamic world.
And so, what is your view of how the world should try to influence, because nothing has worked yet? You yourself don't go back, right? Because you
don't want to legitimize them.
MOHSENI: Well, yes, partially. Yes.
AMANPOUR: But you think governments should what?
MOHSENI: I think they should engage for a number of reasons. Firstly, because I think that there are different personalities on the ground who
are willing to engage and there are men in their 30s and 40s who can actually bring about this change we're talking about. I think we have to
see the Taliban change from within. That's the best hope for Afghanistan. I mean --
AMANPOUR: Do you think it's possible?
[13:35:00]
MOHSENI: Well, I think two things have become clear the sanctions and the current, you know, approach to Afghanistan has not worked. And for now, at
least, it seems the Taliban are here to stay. So, a slightly different approach may be needed.
But the other important thing is Afghanistan is on the verge of collapse, basically. This humanitarian crisis is a serious one. Something like 20 odd
million people basically don't have enough food. A third of the country, they don't have proper housing. We've got this winter around the corner.
And because of El Nino it's meant to be a very cold winter.
So, malnourishment. I mean, if you look at every single -- you know, the U.N. list of everything that could possibly go wrong in the country, it's
going wrong. So, the world needs to engage, first and foremost, for the sake of the Afghan population in terms of basic needs, you know, helping
with food security, with livelihoods, you know, making the economy more resilient. But I think it's not a bad idea also to engage with the Taliban
to make them understand in terms of what they need to do, because I think for them, legitimacy is also important.
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you just to sum up? You've written this book. What is it? Because we can't get to every chapter and every line in this interview.
What is it that you want to tell readers, viewers, the world about your country?
MOHSENI: Well, it's a wonderful country, warm people, it's an exciting place, and I tell the story of all the different characters that made the
media business possible for us in Afghanistan. It's as much as their story as it is my story.
AMANPOUR: And that is very vibrant. I mean, I was amazed to see how, you know, a generation of journalists took to this free media opportunity in a
very rigorous way.
MOHSENI: And they're still doing it.
AMANPOUR: That's good. That's a good note to end on. Saad Mohseni, thank you so much.
MOHSENI: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: We turn now to an issue that took center stage at this week's presidential debate, and which our next guest describes as a national
tragedy, that is the housing market in America. Atlantic staff writer, Jerusalem Demsas, has covered this at length, including in her new book,
"On the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, Democracy." She sits down with Hari Sreenivasan to discuss why it's so difficult to find an affordable
home.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Bianna, thanks. Jerusalem Demsas, thanks so much for joining us. You watched the
presidential debate, I'm sure recently, the first question out of the back -- out of the box was about the housing crisis. You write about the housing
crisis and have been for quite some time for The Atlantic. What went through your mind?
JERUSALEM DEMSAS, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC AND AUTHOR, "ON THE HOUSING CRISIS: LAND, DEVELOPMENT, DEMOCRACY": It's just remarkable to see this
take such center stage at the debate. I mean, the first question wasn't even about the housing crisis, and yet, you know, Vice President Kamala
Harris, and Democratic nominee for president, I mean, her -- right out the gate, her answer is about housing, and I think that that's something that
many people who have followed this space would not have expected.
SREENIVASAN: You call the housing crisis in America a national tragedy. Why?
DEMSAS: I think about housing as the fundamental building block of the economy and of people's lives. When someone thinks about how they want to
make their life work, when they think about the kids they want to have, they want to think about if they want to be close to their friends, their
family, when they think about the types of jobs that give them dignity, meaning that pay them well, all of those things are predicated on the idea
that there will be a home available waiting for them if they need to move.
Americans move a lot. I mean, you know, one study showed that Americans move on average 12 times -- over 12 times over the course of their life. We
move when we're kids to different school districts to get a better education. We move to go to, you know, college, some of us. We move for
different jobs. We move when we get married. We move in with different partners.
There's lots of times where we have expectations that in order to make our lives work, there will be housing that we can afford and fits with what we
need. And when that's taken away, when that's not available, it really undermines the quality of life that people are looking to create.
SREENIVASAN: Give us some scale or some perspective on how bad the crisis is. What kind of statistics leap out at you that you think people might not
be as aware of?
DEMSAS: The core statistic I look at is this idea around a housing shortage, right? Right now, we have multiple estimates that put that number
at around 4 million homes. To put that into context, the last time we saw a number like that was after World War II, when the vets were returning home,
and we hadn't built since before the Great Depression at any scale at all. That's the kind of crisis we're confronting right now.
But at the very human level, most people watching this have themselves probably seen the housing crisis in their own lives. They've seen it in
family members who have been unable to live near their parents when they have kids. They've seen it in their own lives as young people trying to
move out of the parents' house and start their own life fresh. They've seen it with seniors who have been trying to downsize it, but remain in their
communities. In all these ways you see the housing crisis is really impacting people on a very human level.
[13:40:00]
SREENIVASAN: Let's kind of just take a step back. How did we get to the situation where there is such a lopsided gap in the amount of housing
available versus what's necessary?
DEMSAS: You know, the housing shortage in the post-World War 2 era in the immediate aftermath, the answer is pretty simple, we don't have enough
housing. We need to build more housing.
We built out the suburbs. You know, this is when, you know, baby boomers refer to as kind of the big wealth creation of their lives, is the creation
of all of these homes that they're able to buy into and get access to and begin jumping on that equity and home ownership ladder.
But at some point, you know, you kind of build out the suburbs that are available. And what people want is they want more housing closer to the
urban core because they want to be able to commute to work. And so, what we see happening is instead of accommodating that new growth, instead of
building more densely, instead of building these smaller starter homes and single-family homes -- smaller starter homes and multifamily homes that can
accommodate lower-income and middle-income Americans, we've stopped allowing that sort of building to happen.
And so, it's really a very simple Economics 101 problem where we need more housing. We're creating a lot of good jobs in America. We have them in a
bunch of our urban centers, places like San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Boston, Nashville, Austin, Miami, these cities are producing jobs at
really, really high rates. But when people show up, there's not building at the rates necessary to accommodate them. And that opposition has largely
come from local governments that have been loathed to allow the kind of change necessary in order to accommodate that change and growth.
SREENIVASAN: So, let's talk a little bit about it. Look, if it's Economics 101, supply and demand theoretically even out, because the market solves
for it, if there are not enough houses, one would think that builders would rush to build more houses so they can sell it to consumers who want them,
right. What's -- what are the stumbling blocks?
DEMSAS: Developers are chomping at the bit to build, whether it's, you know, private market developers. But also, I talked to affordable housing
developers who are really, really wanting to build. They see this demand. They want to be able to do this. And often they have the money to be able
to do this, but the laws make it very difficult to do so.
And to give you an example, you know, starter homes are often thought to be around 1,500 square feet. You know, that's the size of a starter home that,
you know, baby boomers were used to buying into for their first house. Now, that kind of house is illegal to build in the vast majority of residential
land in this country.
You cannot just go as a builder buy some property, some land and decide you're going to build a bunch of small starter homes. It's illegal. Many
places you'll have to build something that's at least 5,000 square feet, maybe even 10,000 square feet. In some parts of this country, houses are
not allowed to be built on smaller than one acre of land.
When you create those kinds of regulations at the local level that make it impossible to build smaller houses, you're basically outlawing affordable
housing that can be bought by people who are making a middle-income salary, even if they're working two jobs, and that's why we see, you know, home
prices going from an average of, you know, $300,000 dollars across the country to $700,000 in some places, and even a million in other places.
That's not natural.
Their -- developers are motivated by a private market instinct to make a lot of money, and they're being constrained from being able to chop up this
land into smaller pieces by local governments that are often hostile to that kind of building.
SREENIVASAN: You mentioned the average size of a starter home, and it also makes me wonder, I mean, sometimes starter homes are just the right fit for
kind of your -- not just your first house, but also your last house. What about sort of seniors in communities that are kind of locked into where
they're living now, but they can't really downsize because that kind of house isn't around for them?
DEMSAS: Yes, this is some of the some of the sad stories I've heard about the housing crisis have come from seniors who have been locked in place.
So, there are a lot of seniors, I mean, who, as they get older, a lot of people are unable to use the stairs the way they would, or it becomes much
more difficult for them to do so. It literally becomes unusable for them to be in their own home. But then they have to make the very difficult of
saying, do I stay in this house where it's literally inaccessible for me to use the facilities I need, or do I have to leave my community?
Because when they look around their neighborhoods, there aren't the homes available to them that would actually meet their needs. It's really, really
devastating for someone kind of nearing the end of their life to have to move out of their community that they're familiar with, that they're
comfortable in, and maybe have to, even early on in their life, much earlier than they expected, move into a residential facility and that can
actually end up shortening your life or really impeding how you wanted it to go. And so, it's really interesting to see AARP get involved in pro-
housing legislation as a result of this.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: How much -- when you mentioned the phrase affordable housing, you know, in conversations about real estate and about communities, that
seems to sort of trigger other kinds of impressions right away for people. And how much, I wonder, are these policies from these local communities
really a version of class segregation?
DEMSAS: Yes, that's a really good question. So, zoning regulations -- and that's kind of the class of regulations I've been talking about. So, these
are regulations that determine what sorts of things you're allowed to do with land, how big you can build a house, how much you can cut it down,
whether you can have a two-story house, all of these things are under the banner of zoning regulations.
So, these regulations are created in the 1910s after the Supreme Court rules that it is illegal to explicitly zone areas based on race. So, you
can no longer just say, here's the area for the black people. Here's the area for Chinese people. Here's the area for white people. You're not
allowed to do that.
And so, cities are very innovative. Racists are very innovative. And so, what they do is they decide they're just going to create a facially
racially neutral policy, which is to say, well, we're not going to say no black people can live here, we're just going to say the only types of
houses that can exist here are ones that are affordable to millionaires.
And what that does in a country that has created a bunch of set class segregation is, of course, de facto means that it becomes racially
segregated. Over the course of the 20th century, we see a bunch of different developments that make it possible for people of color to also
achieve wealth. So, you do see, of course, black, Asian American, Latino American people able to buy into these neighborhoods, but they don't
actually break down the class barriers.
So, right now, middle-income, people who are just starting out in life, people who were used to being serviced by the private market and not
needing government assistance in order to afford housing, no longer can do so in our most productive cities and suburbs in America.
SREENIVASAN: So, you know, there's supposed to be a feedback loop from local communities where, if we don't like the laws, we can change them,
right? Why is that not working? If there is such a pressing need in different communities, why aren't people able to go to the polls, so to
speak, put up ballot initiatives or measures, go to City Hall and change things?
DEMSAS: Yes, I mean, I think there are a few different reasons for this. I think the first reason is that there's often a disconnect to people between
new buildings that are being constructed and the impact they have on the broader housing market. So, it can be hard to tell from your own personal
perspective. Why is it that if a developer can't build, you know, a few more houses on small lots of land, how does that affect my life?
But what we know from economic research is that it's really clear that when new homes are constrained, then rich people begin to occupy cheaper homes.
I think the clearest place where this is most evident to people is places like New York City, where you see people who are making well into the six
figures.
Living in houses that are tiny, dilapidated, often they're living in places that are, you know, fire unsafe. They don't actually not up to code in a
lot of places in the country would expect to have up to code. And the reason for that is because when you stop building enough, rich people still
get the housing that they want, they just -- or which people still get housing, but everyone else is then pushed into worse and worse units.
But the other reason, I think, is the democratic problem. So, what we have in this country is the fact that most of the power around housing, around
land, is at the local level, but Americans as democratic and by that, I mean, small democratic animals are not local political thinkers anymore.
We don't engage in local politics. We don't vote there. But even if we did, it's a real problem because how would you even, as an expert in this field
really know who to blame? Do you blame your local city council member? Do you blame your mayor, your zoning commissioner, your historic preservation
board? Do you blame the county? It's actually becomes a situation where there's so many different layers of government all responsible for
different overlapping issues that it becomes difficult to have any kind of democratic accountability.
And I think that really ties into why you see so much energy at the national level, finally, on trying to solve this issue, because this is a
place where Americans pay attention.
SREENIVASAN: How much of it comes down to our sort of personal preferences when push comes to shove? Look, I want to have a good hospital nearby, but
maybe I don't want the sound of the ambulances, right? I'm for drug rehab centers. I just don't necessarily need it down the block for me where
people could be walking back and forth with drug paraphernalia. I mean, the sort of not in my backyard portion of this, how big is that in the hurdles
to getting better housing policy?
DEMSAS: Yes. So, not in my backyard or NIMBY as you brought up is a real problem because it is very, very difficult for people when they're asked,
hey, do you want there to be homeless shelters? They're like, yes, there should be a homeless shelter. And then you ask them, well, should it be
cited a couple blocks from your home? And they're like, no, I prefer it's not going to be there.
[13:50:00]
And if -- you know, if every single community behaves that exact same way, then that means no homeless shelters ever get built. And you see problems
like in Los Angeles, where they approve over a billion dollars for affordable housing construction in order to get homelessness off the
streets, but they can't cite that affordable housing at all because no one will accept that. And you have mass homelessness on the streets creating
huge problems, both for the people who are experiencing homelessness, but for the city at large as well.
And so, it is a really big problem, but I think often we can focus too much on individual people's viewpoints about where they want stuff to be cited
and not enough on the institutional factors that are creating the problem.
All around the world you have people who would prefer not to have, you know, homeless shelters or drug rehabilitation centers or apartment
buildings built near them. But in America, we've created different system of localism and decentralization that makes it really, really hard for
governments to balance a bunch of interests.
When you devolve authority to tens of thousands of local governments, no one can do that balancing, no one can say, here's where development should
occur, here's where we should constrain development. It's just a bunch of different entities saying no,
SREENIVASAN: There was a recent Pew Charitable Trust poll that said almost nine and 10 Americans would like to figure out ways to expedite the
permitting process, right? So, why are we not seeing kind of more movement on the legislative front at the state level or in the federal level?
DEMSAS: I think it can be very, very difficult to -- because it's not a partisan issue, right? At the state and local level, usually partisan
issues are actually the easiest things to get done because you often see partisan control of these state houses and of these governor mansions. But
because this issue really breaks up the coalition, there are Republicans in favor and opposed. There are Democrats in favor and opposed.
Essentially, no major bill on pro-housing issues has been passed without bipartisan support because you simply need to get all the support you can
muster. The difficult politics of this are often because we've only just now recently begun addressing the role of these regulations to these
elected officials. But we are seeing increased attention, states like Montana, like Oregon, like Washington, California, Arizona, Texas, Florida,
this is a very wide range of political ideologies. All of these states have begun passing pro-housing legislation. Colorado where Jared Polis is the
governor has been a leader on this. It's a purple state there too.
So, seeing that kind of coalition building in a bunch of different state houses, a bunch of different ideologies, shows the promise of this sort of
approach. But, you know, it's a big hurdle. When you're 4 million homes behind, you can make a lot of progress without actually getting all the
benefits you need to really reduce the pain.
SREENIVASAN: During the DNC, President Barack Obama during a speech says, if we want to make it easier for more young people to buy a home, we need
to build more units and clear away some of the outdated laws and regulations that made it harder to build homes for working people in this
country.
You -- I mean, you tweeted how surprised you were by that.
DEMSAS: Yes. So, Former President Barack Obama, when he was in office in his second term, you know, he's a very wonky guy, very technocratic guy, as
we all remember. And so, this has been a conversation, this conversation about these regulations, about local governments and their, you know,
responsibility for the housing crisis has been something that academics and experts have known for a long time.
And so, I'm not surprised personally, that Barack Obama knows this, but what I am surprised about and was excited and invigorated about is that
now, finally, people at the national level are willing to take on the difficult politics of this issue in order to try and help solve this
crisis.
If you talk to political scientists or law professors from a decade ago, they would just tell you that this is an intractable problem, that
Americans are just going to continue to have higher and higher home prices, higher and higher rents and all the problems that come downstream of that,
because it's too difficult to handle the political you know, breakdown at the local level. I mean, this is like one of the third rails of state and
local politics alongside things like property tax reform.
And so, because of that, seeing Barack Obama and also Democratic nominee for president Kamala Harris, both in her own speech at the DNC, and then in
ensuing ads and at -- you know, in the debate that we just watched with Former President Donald Trump, seeing that be foregrounded and the
willingness to take on this thorny issue really showcases how far we've come and showcases how acute the pain has gotten for the American people
that there's no choice but to take on the difficult politics here.
SREENIVASAN: The new book is called "On the Housing Crisis: Land, Development, and Democracy." You can see Jerusalem's essays there. Thanks
so much for joining us.
DEMSAS: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
GOLODRYGA: And finally, for us, if the housing crisis is demoralizing, here's a story that could make your commute more fun at least. Formula 1
star Lando Norris took a life-sized Lego car for a spin around the Silverstone surrogate, one of the world's premier Grand Prix racing tracks.
He was driving a replica of his usual ride, a McLaren P1 Supercar.
The Lego racer featured more than 300,000 Lego technique elements, and it took a team of experts over 8,000 hours to build. Norris, who's just 24
years old, is no stranger to fast toys. As a teen, he was one of Britain's leading go kart racers. Wow, that is impressive.
Well, that is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can
always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media. Thanks for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
