Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Civic Initiatives Executive Director Maja Stojanovic; Interview with "Adolescence" Actor and Co-Writer Stephen Graham; Interview with The New York Times Opinion Columnist Nicholas Kristof. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired March 20, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
In Serbia, can anti-corruption protests take down a populist president? Democracy activist Maja Stojanovic joins me from Belgrade.
Then to Gaza, where the end of the ceasefire could also mean ending any chance of an education for hundreds of thousands of children there.
And, the harrowing Netflix hit series that takes on toxic masculinity. I'm joined by Stephen Graham, the co-star, the star and the co-writer of
"Adolescence."
Plus, Elon Musk claims no one has died as a result of his DOGE cuts. Nicholas Kristof joins Hari Sreenivasan and he begs to differ.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
Ripples from the tsunami of Trump disruption are being felt across the world. Like in Serbia, where populist president Aleksandar Vukic faces
massive popular protests, forcing his government to resign now. Police say more than 100,000 people flooded the streets of Belgrade this weekend.
Independent observers say the numbers are much higher.
The demonstrations erupted after a concrete canopy collapsed at a train station in November, killing 15 commuters. Many Serbs blame the collapse on
rampant government corruption. And how does the Trump factor show up? Well, observers say Vucic, like other strongman leaders in Europe, are USAID
funded civil society groups that he blames for inciting protesters. If the strongest leader in the world can gut USAID all the way from Washington,
then why shouldn't Vucic have a go at them too?
My next guest leads one such pro-democracy organization that's been targeted by her own government. Maja Stojanovic is the executive director
of Civic Initiatives, and she's joining me now from Belgrade. Maja Stojanovic, welcome to the program.
Look, I'm going to get to the nature of the protest in a moment. But were you surprised that the government resigned? The protesters said that they
weren't looking to topple the president or they just wanted corruption to be addressed.
MAJA STOJANOVIC, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CIVIC INITIATIVES: So, basically, it's important to say that the government didn't resign yesterday.
Actually, the prime minister resigned in January. And for how many, like months or so, the government actually -- the national assembly waited to
pass some important laws for them, which are important for -- like very strange law on the urgent procedures, for -- on a couple of assembly
meetings.
So, basically, the assembly didn't accept the resignation of the prime minister for a while because they wanted to actually pass the laws, which
are not publicly supported.
AMANPOUR: So, let's go to the protests. We explained what they are, why they happened because of the collapse of this canopy. But why have these
protests become such a huge thing? Symbolizing, apparently, much more than that canopy and 15 deaths?
STOJANOVIC: So, this is the biggest protest ever. We are witnessing now people on the streets in more than 300, 400 cities in Serbia. That means
actually that in each city, in each small village, in each municipality, we have people standing up against the corruption and for the rule of law.
What is actually different is that these protests are led by young people. We never had that in Serbia. I think it's rarely seen all over the world,
that young people from university, high school pupils, even the elementary school pupils are actually going into the streets and asking for the
accountability of the government.
[13:05:00]
It's the first time I would say it was very trigger, was very symptomatic because the people not killed when this canopy fell, but also what was
important that this the same railway station was opened by the government a couple of months ago as the biggest and most important and the loveliest
railway stations.
So, basically, people automatically connected the corruption and what happened during the renovation of the railway station with the killing of
people. And the main slogan of the protest, actually from the -- right from the beginning, it was the corruption kills.
So, it was completely different than the different protests that we had about the rigid election or environment protest or any other protest. It
was led by youth people. They're using completely different methodology. And this is actually -- just to keep up with the previous question, this is
why the government actually resigned in January because people, young people were attacked and that provoked even more frustration from the
citizens.
AMANPOUR: So, explain to us, Vucic has been in office for I think coming on to eight years. That -- he's had his -- he's living out his terms. What
does this say about the government? How is the media covering it? Are the - - is Vucic and the government trying to crack down on the protests? What kind of political crisis is it showing in Serbia right now?
STOJANOVIC: So, Vucic is in office for more than eight years, but we have him in power until -- since 2012. And what is very important that during
this period, it's a more than decade, we really had a captured state. We didn't have separation of power. It was a full control of media. It was
full control of the judiciary.
So, basically, at this point, we have a government who is trying to stay in power. Building on these undemocratic processes and undemocratic way of
governing for years. So, at this point we have a huge crackdown on civil society. We have a huge crackdown on the protesters. We have a prosecution
raising the charges against civil society only because, that was the only reason, because Donald Trump and Elon Musk said that USAID is corrupt and
criminal organization.
So, basically, we are facing, at this point, a huge pressure toward the citizens. We had, as Civic Initiatives, more than 2,000 cases of the
pressures toward students, pressures towards citizens, but also the arrest of young people. And we currently have young people in jail.
The -- my family and I were threatened directly by the president. It happens a couple of times a week during the -- on the national stations.
So, basically all the national state stations and public broadcasting services are perpetuating this message that we are the foreign agents, that
we are the one who are organizing colorful revolution and that we are supported by the governments from outside.
AMANPOUR: Right.
STOJANOVIC: Which is, I have to say, very tricky. Tricky, tricky, tricky, and doesn't have any logics because the biggest money USAID actually gave
to the government of Serbia and the civil society and nongovernmental groups are getting 5 to 7 percent of that money.
AMANPOUR: So, if the civil society is under pressure, as you say, because Vucic and his team are looking at what's being said from the United States,
what was it like before Trump, before this war on USAID? Were you able to operate in Serbia? How did this money help in terms of the civil society
space?
STOJANOVIC: So, basically, we have we have different processes. The money was used for fighting for democracy. We are fighting for democracy and rule
of law for years, and we are the ones who are actually trying to set up some principles of how the government should work.
So, these processes, and especially our USAID project, were actually used to connect civil society with the government and we are part of the
government process helping government to be more open, be more transparent, and to respect the rule of law. When that -- these stops a lot of civil
society organization lost the possibility to work more on this transparency and rule of law and democracy building.
On the other hand, we had the ongoing process for years that actually civil -- the government was supported and still is supported mainly from the
European Commission or from U.S. for years because there was this balance of actually how to fight for democracy if you are not actually working with
the government.
[13:10:00]
And our belief now is that what was happening in Serbia for years, that this support for authoritarian regimes actually are the -- showed the wrong
way how to fight for democracy and how to support mutually like outside of the borders, within the borders of democratic powers.
AMANPOUR: And, Maja Stojanovic, when you talk about authoritarianism and in these nationalist governments, at one -- I mean, do you still look to
the United States? Do you look to the Trump administration as a supporter of democracy or vice versa? And how does what's happening in Serbia and fit
in with what's happening in Hungary, what's happening across your border in the Republika Srpska, in Bosnia? There's a lot of resistance to democratic
norms in those countries as well, those places.
STOJANOVIC: We see the global situation is literally declining democracy. So, it's a really -- we are all connected vessels. The world is globalized
so much that any kind of deterioration of human rights and democracy in one country, how much -- how small the country is, it's really not important,
is actually overlapping and it's connected throughout the world.
So, our personal belief, people of this region actually believe that the democracy needs to be built completely different. It needs to be built from
the grassroot level. I think young people are teaching us very important lesson now, that we as a democracy are actors actually lost our basic
values, basic principles, not -- maybe not lost completely, but we forgot how to fight for them.
Now, the speeches of freedom, speeches of sovereignty, speeches of democracy -- like not even democracy, but basic justice and basic rights
are somehow came to the right-wing side. And I think that we need to look and you especially need to look what happened in Serbia in the last 10
years so we can all learn and find a way to understand actually find this completely different basic principles, how to rebuild democracy. Democracy
is built every day. And I think that we all as democratic powers forgot that.
Now, we have example in Serbia, and I would really like for people around the region, they started, but also globally to learn from the -- from this
example.
AMANPOUR: And finally, Donald Trump Jr. was in Serbia. Big pictures of him with President Vucic, posted all over the place. We know that the Trumps
and the son-in-law, Jared Kushner, have business dealings there. They want to build a big hotel in Belgrade.
What do you think President Vucic is getting from that association with the Trumps? How is he using that to his advantage in Belgrade now, in Serbia?
STOJANOVIC: Well, he's using everything that he can use. He used Erdogan's way of ruling. He used Orban. And now, he's very happy that such a big and
important country is actually sending the same messages.
So, this is actually a message to the citizens of Serbia. When Trump's son comes here, it's a message that the family is important, that governments
are run by family. So, it's a call and it's a support for nepotism, it's a call and support for corruption. And it's very hard. You can imagine how
much harder it is for us to find from inside when this kind of messages are sent from the powers that used to be. And we are still hoping, I will say
that there is a lot of potential in U.S. to stay democratic.
But at this point, actually, what is coming as a message from U.S., what is coming as a message from people connected to U.S., not only Trump's son,
but also Giuliani was recently, and a lot of connected people in different ways to business or family were here in the region, and I would say that
this is very dangerous for the democracy in Serbia, but also for the regional stability. And keep in mind that we are post-conflict region
still.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
STOJANOVIC: So, basically any disturbances in the Bosnia and Republika Srpska that can have huge consequences if we all don't find a way to keep
democracy alive together.
AMANPOUR: A warning from Serbia. Thank you, Maja Stojanovic, for joining us this evening.
STOJANOVIC: Thank you.
[13:15:00]
AMANPOUR: We turn now to Gaza, where Israel has gone to war again with increasing ferocity. Dozens have been reported killed in strikes there this
morning, bringing the total death toll to 50,000 now, according to local authorities, since Hamas attacked Israel October 7th. And Hamas has now
responded to the latest Israeli airstrikes.
Firing several missiles into the central part of Israel today. Now, caught into the middle of all of this are children. They too are being killed in
huge numbers and they have been traumatized. During the brief respite in fighting under the January ceasefire, some of those teachers in Gaza tried
their best to help children learn in makeshift schools amidst the rubble. Paula Hancocks has this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Learning to write the letter D, Dal in Arabic, on what's left of the chalkboard. Basic
education that Gaza's young have been denied for so long. This was last December when the war was raging, where rebel was their playground and a
building that looked ready to collapse their place of learning.
Many children were initially too scared to come, the teacher says, because of the destruction all around. Thirteen-year-old Faraz Akzouk (ph) was one
of the students, grieving for lost relatives, but determined to learn.
My school had everything, she says. Chairs, pencils, notebooks, and chalkboards. Now, we sit on rubble. If we find a notebook among the ruins,
we try to use it.
During the two-month ceasefire, Farah (ph) walked on the ruins of her school in Khan Younis, a seventh grader who used to be top of her class.
I feel no ceasefire, she says. There's destruction everywhere. It's the same as war.
What had changed, is she had space to realize how much she had lost. No home, and no school.
I feel my heart is ripped apart, like I'm in pieces, she says. I don't know how else to describe it. And now, a devastating return to war threatens the
limited education spaces that had been created.
PHILIPPE LAZZARINI, COMMISSIONER-GENERAL, UNRWA: It's as important as providing lifesaving assistance. And the more we wait, the more we take the
risk to sacrifice an entire generation.
HANCOCKS (voice-over): Pre-conflict, just under half of Gaza's school aged children attended UNRWA schools. Israel has since banned the U.N. agency's
presence in Gaza, accusing it of ties to Hamas, which the U.N. denies.
More than 95 percent of educational facilities in Gaza have been partially or completely destroyed since October 7, 2023, according to a U.N. report
released last November, including many that have been turned into shelters.
Israel's military claimed many were used by Hamas as command control centers, making them legitimate targets, an accusation Hamas denies.
UNICEF had set up more than 140 temporary education spaces, reaching some 100,000 children, still a fraction of those who need it. But spaces which
are largely suspended since the bombs started falling again Monday.
Sisters Manar (ph) and Rawan (ph) should have been close to graduating from university by now, one is an architect the other as a pharmacist. The war
forced them to continue their studies remotely, almost impossible given the scant electricity and internet. They were displaced multiple times.
We're forced to come up to the fourth floor even though the building may collapse, says Manar (ph). We have to get internet connection from an eSIM
card so we can download our lectures.
Rawan (ph), in her sixth year of clinical pharmacy studies, has been deprived of key in-person experience with patients.
The war affected us greatly to the point that we're unable to get practical training, she says, because the war left, no functional health system or
hospitals.
Almost half of Gaza's population is under the age of 18. For them, education is a lifeline, a hope for a better future that has been taken
away from them.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Those children's lives and their futures interrupted again. Paula Hancocks reporting there. Still to come, "Adolescence," the new
Netflix show about how the darkest corners of social media are shaping young boys views on women and girls. Star Stephen Graham is up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
AMANPOUR: Now, we turn to a Netflix miniseries delving into the horrifying dangers of toxic masculinity and violence against women and girls. With the
rise of influencers like self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate. It is an urgent issue facing society and particularly facing parents who are raising
young men.
"Adolescence" tells the story of a 13-year-old boy in England accused of murdering a girl in his class. It's a deep dive into the traumas and impact
of what teenagers are exposed to online these days. Here's a clip.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I haven't done anything.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You're a good dad, a great dad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He hasn't been found guilty, he's been accused.
What have you done?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Banged by a girl, you sausage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not getting it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What am I not getting?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dad, you're not reading what they're doing. It's a call to action by the Manosphere. 80 percent of women are attracted to 20
percent of men. You must trick them, because you'll never get them in the normal way.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've done nothing wrong, have we? Hey.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: The trailer there. It's inspired by tragic real-life events. The miniseries was co-written by playwright Jack Thorne and the acclaimed
British actor Stephen Graham. "From this is England," and "Snatch" to "Matilda" and "Boiling Point," Graham demonstrates not just his range as an
actor, but also a fearless commitment to taking on the toughest topics.
He plays the father in this miniseries, and he is joining me now from New York. Stephen Graham, welcome to the program.
STEPHEN GRAHAM, ACTOR AND CO-WRITER, "ADOLESCENCE": Hello. Thank you for having me.
AMANPOUR: So, I don't know this is pretty much quite a recent you know, addition to Netflix, but it's already number one over this past week in 71
countries, more than 70 countries around the world. Are you -- did you expect this kind of reaction when you started into this?
GRAHAM: No, of course not. When we made it, we -- you know, it's very colloquial. It's set in a little town up north in England. So, we made it
with love, honesty, integrity, and respect. And what seems to have happened, it's kind of like a stone, and you throw the stone into a pond,
and this ripple effect has been huge, really. Do you know what I mean? But we never meant it to have this impact. We just wanted to tell a truthful
and honest story that we came up with.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, it is a really interesting, obviously, and it's getting so much acclaim, but we're going to go into the how it was filmed. But
first, I want to ask you, I said it's about toxic masculinity, how would you describe what it is? It's about more than that, right? What would you
say you're trying to explore in these four episodes?
GRAHAM: Basically, I read an article in the paper a good few years ago, and then a couple of months later there was a piece on the news, on the
telly, and it was about -- there was two young boys who'd stabbed these young girls to death. And they were at opposite ends of the country, and it
just made me really -- if I'm completely honest with you, it really hurt my heart, and it made me wonder why they would do something like this and
what's kind of happens within our society where this thing in Britain has become kind of a regular occurrence.
[13:25:00]
And then, you know, that beautiful saying, like your article just before then, your piece, it takes a village to raise a child.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GRAHAM: Well, what I thought we could look at, you know, is maybe we're all slightly accountable in some way, shape, or form. Do you know what I
mean? And we look at it and we analyze it from a different perspective. So, maybe it's down to parenting. Maybe it's down to, you know, the school
system, the government, the community, and the social structure which the child's raised.
But on top of that, when me and you were kids we didn't have the internet, but now the internet is a huge influence on our children. And in many
cases, you know, it's parenting our children just as much as we are, and it's educating our children just as much, if not more than our schools are.
AMANPOUR: I want to start a little bit -- take it through from the beginning. So, we've got a clip from the first episode. And this is, you
know, quite a shocking one for parents to see, for anybody to see. Essentially, it's when the police break down your family home, the front
door, to come and arrest your son Jamie. He's 13 years old.
Now, we've said and you've said, it's really not a who done it So, there's no spoiler alert. It's a why done it.
GRAHAM: Yes.
AMANPOUR: And we know from the beginning that Jamie is accused of committing this murder. Here is one of the first scenes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is D.I. Bascom (ph). I have a warrant to search your premises. So, where's your son? Where's your son?
GRAHAM: (INAUDIBLE) bedroom. What do you (INAUDIBLE) for?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where is he?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Jamie Miller. The time is 6:15 a.m., and I'm arresting you on suspicion of murder. You don't have to say anything.
Mr. Miller, Mr. Miller, I will arrest you for obstruction. Please stop. Please. I'm arresting you on suspicion of murder. You do not have to say
anything, but it may harm your defense if you do not mention one question.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dad, I haven't done anything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dad.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you understand?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Dad, I haven't done anything.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you understand? Do you understand?
GRAHAM: Just tell him you understand, Jay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. I understand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Good. Get up slowly, please.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, it's really traumatic. You are dad, obviously, we can hear you off screen telling him to say that he understands. He's a child. He's
been accused of a murder. But you then have him sort of pop out of bed and he's wet himself. I mean, there's so much that's telling us, the humanity
and the madness of what's happening in this moment. Was it traumatic for you when you shot it? I mean, telling the story, how did you decide to show
it like this?
GRAHAM: We always knew that the format we would use would be in the one shot. And what that kind of does is that enables us to grab the audience
straight away. So, I knew in my head when I was setting up the idea, when I was talking to Jack, who's our fantastic writer, Jack Thorne, when -- I
wanted us to grab the audience's attention straight away.
And I'm slightly obsessed with 24 hours in police custody as well, which is, you know, a documentary series at home. And kind of the format how that
we get someone and we arrest them and then we see how the police bring them to trial. And within the concept of this, straight away, I wanted the
audience not to think that Jamie was capable of such a horrendous act. And within the format that we use, what we're capable of doing then is taking
the audience with the family.
So, the great thing about this specific style, which our amazing director of photography, Matt Lewis, kind of come up with and created with Phil, the
director as well, you've got the audience straight away. So, you then have this voyeuristic element with the camera. And as the family are learning
and working out what's happened, so too did the audience. So, that kind of concept of him -- with him wetting himself, any 13 year old boy with the
police coming through the front door with guns, you know, it would frighten the life out of you, you should imagine. So, we wanted to try and make him
as real and as authentic and as human as possible straight away.
And as it unfolds, the audience could be thinking, maybe he couldn't have done this, or could he have done this? And then, when they find out that he
has done it, we realize as an audience the same way the family realize in the real-time. And that was the great technique of what we've done.
AMANPOUR: Well, that --
GRAHAM: This both would --
AMANPOUR: Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt, but that scene of where you finally realize, because yes, you didn't want to believe it. Jamie, the son
in the series, tells you, dad, I didn't do it. He tells everybody, I didn't do it. And then, the police show you the CCTV, you and Jamie watching it
together. And you suddenly realize, oh, my God, my son has done this.
[13:30:00]
And it's very -- it's quite shocking. And again, how did you decide to kind of tell us who had done it right from the beginning? What was your point
about letting the audience know that it was the son, because you had three more episodes to come?
GRAHAM: Well, what we wanted to do then is because we know he's done it, we then wish to ask ourselves the question, which I think we should as a
society, but as an audience, particularly as in why. So, then the rest of the journey, what we did is because you come into the each point of the
story. So, we grab the attention straight away and we'll wit them on the very first -- the beginning of this incident. And then what you do is you
have a lineage.
So, with a conventional drama we'd be following this, you know, process like chronologically, but with this concept what we can do is you come into
it for an hour So, the next episode we're going to go into the school and find out and see where he may have been influenced or why he's done this.
What's his life like within the school system to create this heinous act that he's done.
And then, within the concept of the third episode, what I wanted to do then, with a normal conventional drama, you would meet the child
psychologist and you would meet, Jamie, for the very first time, we'd see their very first meeting. But what I said to Jack was, I want it to be the
like fifth time that they've met.
And my only note to Jack, who is such a wonderful writer, he writes "The Human Condition" beautifully, Jack Thorne. And my only note to Jack was, I
said, Jack, look, within this episode, I want you to basically write your version of a David Mamet play. And he was like, is that the only note
you're going to give me? And I went, yes, you're capable, Jack. Write something beautiful and let's get into the mind of this young boy.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GRAHAM: And that's where Charlotte, Jack's assistant, she found that whole kind of incel culture and the manosphere, because I had no idea about any
of that stuff. So, that's where that kind of collaborative element comes into play.
AMANPOUR: I want to --
GRAHAM: And then the final episode --
AMANPOUR: Yes. No, go ahead, final episode.
GRAHAM: The final episode, I wanted to really look at the impact that it would have on the family. Because, again, within a conventional drama, and
rightly so, I'm not -- you know, rightly so within a conventional drama, we would normally follow the victim -- the family of the victim. And that's
what -- you know, that's where the heart is, of course.
But within this one, I wanted to follow the family of the perpetrator because when that's -- look, I think I've kind of got myself together. I'm
51 years of age and, you know, I'm a semi-decent -- I'm a decent man. But I found myself judging when I watched it on the news, when I heard about this
young boy who'd stabbed this young girl, I thought, it's got to be the parents.
And then, there was a moment where I went I hit a moment of clarity and went no, no, no. What if it's not the parents? Don't jump to that immediate
conclusion.
AMANPOUR: OK.
GRAHAM: I wanted to explore that then.
AMANPOUR: It's really interesting, of course, that as well. So, I want to go back to -- let's take those two points. One is the manosphere. And, you
know, what was explored in the classroom. And then, as you mentioned, with the psychologist. This is Jack Thorne's David Mamet you know, moment. And
he has -- this is -- we're going to show Jamie, the son, with the psychologist who's trying to figure out what he thinks about women, what he
thought about this girl, Kate. And she's trying to figure this out. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Were you attracted to Katie?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She wasn't my type.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, you weren't?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She was quiet. No offence, quite flat, you know.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, everyone else said it. You saw her. That's not just me. The picture got passed around the school. Snapchat, you know. It
was just her. Top half. Not anything else. She sent it to Fidget and then he sends it on.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why did she send it to Fidget?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know. She fancied him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, she was trying to attract him?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he asked her. He's not going to get any more pictures, though, is he?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. She's dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Again, this is this episode, but what are you saying about the manosphere and the toxic -- and the influences that these -- I mean, when
you explored it, what did you come out with, the influences that these young kids have, independent of their parents? Because we see the parents
having said, oh, he used to shut himself in his room. We gave him a computer. We had no idea he was doing -- you as the dad, he was doing this
kind of stuff.
GRAHAM: Of course. It's that kind of sexualization now of young girls and young boys, you know what I mean? Which I think the internet is hugely to
blame for that kind of thing. And that particular point within our script.
[13:35:00]
I've got two friends who are from two completely different social backgrounds within -- you know, in England. One from up north and one from
down south, and they have daughters who go to -- one goes to a comprehensive school and one goes to a private school. And both their
daughters' friends' groups were asked by one of their boyfriends to send photos of them topless.
And so, what I realized from that is that this is not like a class thing, this is a social thing. Do you know what I mean? It goes right across the
board, to what kind of degree is that considered acceptable? And on top of that, it's that kind of -- because I think, in many ways -- look, we're not
pointing the finger at anyone specifically. And that was never our intention. Do you know what I mean? We're a drama that's wanting to raise
the question and sit down and have these discussions about why.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GRAHAM: And this is kind of -- the research that we've shown Jack. Jack did a lot of research on this project. And he -- you know, he said it took
him down a lot of dark holes. The access that he found through the internet.
AMANPOUR: So, that's what I want to ask you.
GRAHAM: And that's the kind of thing --
AMANPOUR: Yes. I want to ask you that because I've got one -- only a little bit of time. So, the prime minister of this country talked about
this program in parliament, said that he's watching it with his teen children. I know that you have children. What do you want the impact of it
to be?
Like, in Australia, they've just banned children from social media, 16 -- until they're 16, I think. They can't go on till after -- till they're 16.
GRAHAM: I think that's something that we should look at. I think there's a way of -- look, and again, you know, people will say freedom of speech,
which I understand, but there's a difference between freedom of speech and poison. Do you know what I mean? I think we need to be very mindful and
very, very careful about what we're influencing our young generation and what we're allowing them to see. Do you know what I mean?
And if anything, personally, if we can strike some kind of communication. And maybe, you know -- someone said the most beautiful thing that, you
know, I think we can get from this is what this program did. And Hannah said this, my wife said, what she feels our program has achieved, as for
parents to be able to open that bedroom door now and talk to their children, be there male or female, and ask them what's going on?
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GRAHAM: Let's just, you know, we -- you know, you know yourself when you go to a restaurant sometimes -- and no disrespect, I understand it, but
kids are sat there with -- on -- you know talk to each other, ask each other what's going on. That's the only way we can understand what's
happening. Adolescence is such a difficult age. Your brain's forming, you know, your chemicals are all over the place. You're learning about
yourself. You're trying to construct this character that's going to take you into the future. So, let's talk. Let's open the bridges of
communication with each other. That's all we're trying to do.
AMANPOUR: A very powerful. And you have got everybody talking about "Adolescence." So, congratulations. Thank you. It was a really amazing
performance and a very powerful series. Stephen Graham, thank you very much indeed.
GRAHAM: Thank you very much. Thank you.
AMANPOUR: Coming up after the break, the lives lost thanks to ending USAID in East Africa. We bring you Hari Sreenivasan's conversation with New York
Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who was recently in South Sudan and Kenya.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: In the United States, a federal judge has halted the shutdown of USAID following relentless efforts by Elon Musk-DOGE guillotine to slash
the agency. Musk insists no lives have been lost from the pause in foreign aid, but the reporting of our next guest proves otherwise.
New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof joins Hari Sreenivasan to speak about the harrowing picture he saw in Kenya and Sudan after the USAID
Supply lines were cut.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
HARI SREENIVASAN, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Christiane. Thanks, Nick Kristof, thanks so much for joining us again. Just about two months
ago, the president wanted to pause all foreign aid assistance. What has happened since this government has taken those steps?
NICHOLAS KRISTOF, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, I went to South Sudan to try to find out what was happening at the grassroots level,
and Elon Musk had said that no one has died because of what he described as this pause, the review aid. And you know, Hari, within an hour of beginning
my reporting, I had found the names of two young children, a 10-year-old boy and an eight-year-old girl who had died because their medication --
their ARV medication against HIV had run out and they couldn't get new sources. These were orphans and vulnerable children.
You know, what is a 10-year-old orphan going to do in Juba, Sudan when the caseworkers are no longer available and he can't get his ARVs? It turns out
that he doesn't get medicine, his viral load increases, he gets an opportunistic pneumonia, and he dies.
And over and over in South Sudan, I found that kids were beginning to die because of the aid shut down and that that is likely to become a tide of
suffering and death in the coming months.
SREENIVASAN: Put this in some perspective for us. Our work on decreasing HIV transmission in different parts of the world goes back through multiple
presidents.
KRISTOF: The PEPFAR program against AIDS may be the Most heroic thing that the United States has done in my adult lifetime. It was started by
President George W. Bush in 2003. And PEPFAR has saved 26 million lives around the world. It's hard to think of any government program that has
saved that many lives worldwide.
You know, the Trump administration has talked about continuing elements of it. But in fact, what I found was that it -- you know, things were being
shut down, that even where humanitarian waivers were granted, that, in fact, there was no one there to actually manage it, to make payments. And
so, these programs de facto were being dismantled and, you know, kids were not getting their medication.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I think there's going to be someone watching here that says, why is it the U.S. government's job to fight HIV and AIDS in
Africa and other places?
KRISTOF: So, I'd offer two responses. I mean, first of all, I think if you look at these kids and you understand that it is costing America just 12
cents a day per person to keep these children alive, then you think, you know, boy, maybe that's a pretty good investment. And that has certainly
been a bipartisan view in the United States for a long time.
But even if antifreeze runs in your veins and you don't care about the moral argument for what we can do to save lives, then I think there's also
a pragmatic argument of self-interest that we have values, but we also have interests at stake.
And, you know, we confront China with aircraft carriers, but we also confront China with aid programs. And that's so that we can have base
rights, so we can have listening posts or that China can. That we can get support for our sanctions or that China can get support at the U.N. for its
international efforts.
And then, you know, beyond that, we also protect our health in America, in part by global disease surveillance. It's a lot cheaper to fight Ebola in
Uganda than it is in America. And you know, polio eradication, if that is one element that was suspended, the result is going to be more polio
worldwide, and that some American kids are going to end up paralyzed or dying. Avian flu -- coming right out of a pandemic, we should understand
the risks of a pandemic. And avian flu surveillance has been suspended, last I saw, in 49 countries because of the USAID shutdown.
So, you know, I certainly believe that we have -- that there is a compelling moral argument to save lives inexpensively where we can, but
there's also an argument about just protecting our own interests and our own lives and our own people.
[13:45:00]
SREENIVASAN: You worked with a think tank based out of Washington D.C. in London, the Center for Global Development, to try to come up with an
estimate of how many lives are at risk if we continue down this path. What did you find?
KRISTOF: So, look, there's a lot of uncertainty and a lot depends on how much aid is actually dismantled and how much is revived. And of course,
there's litigation and there's -- you know, it's very fluid. But their best guess is that USAID currently saves about 3.3 million lives a year around
the world, and that's one way of thinking about how many lives will be lost if everything were shut down.
You know, in fact, I suspect some elements will be preserved. And so, the toll will be less than that. But, you know, there is no doubt that there
will be many, many, hundreds of thousands who will die because we decided to shut down aid and largely to finance tax cuts for the wealthy in the
U.S.
And also, Hari, I should just say that, you know, we measure this in terms of lives lost, but aside from people who die there's also an awful lot of
aid that simply improves wellbeing, that helps girls go to school, that deworms children, you know, we deworm dogs in the United States, you can
deworm a child internationally for about 50 cents a year, and that child is then healthier, more able to work, more able to study, more likely to
become literate, and you know, those programs aren't exactly lifesaving, but boy, they're sure life enhancing.
SREENIVASAN: We've talked a little bit about HIV. What are some of the other programs that you had a chance to visit and what did you witness?
KRISTOF: Hari, one of the things that I saw was a program for malnourished children, and I don't know if you've, you know, seen children starving to
death, but it's just something that just is shattering. This -- typically, it's young kids in the first five years of life, often just after they've
been weaned. And they are expressionless. They don't cry because the body is saving every calorie, every bit of energy to keep the major organs
functioning. And so, they're almost like zombies. And it's -- even though they're in immense pain.
And I went to an area that traditionally had a mobile clinic going there to bring emergency food rations to keep children who were severely
malnourished alive, and a week before that had been cut off because of the aid shutdown. And now, you know, immediately upon reaching the village, I
found a bunch of children who were severely acutely malnourished. None had died yet. I'm sure that some of those will die.
And, Hari, you know, maybe the thing that just wounded me the most. I went to an area in the northwest of South Sudan, where traditionally there had
been almost no health care and women died in childbirth routinely and newborns died as well.
And then in December, a U.S. funded maternity clinic had opened up there and was saving women's lives. Not one woman had died since that open. Not
one newborn had died. And I show up and people, you know, see me asking questions about the clinic, and they mistakenly assume that I'm somehow
responsible for bringing health care to this place.
And there's a woman in labor, and she wants to name her baby after me. The village elders show up under a mahogany tree outside, and they just
effusively thank me, thank America for its generosity. They say women are now safe here. And what they don't know is that the U.S. had just cut off
that program and that that clinic was about to close and that women again, we're going to be bleeding to death in that dust, and that just broke my
heart.
SREENIVASAN: You know, one of the critiques that the administration has had is that so much of the aid is going to international middlemen. Where
is this sort of excess cost in delivering this aid through this pipeline and even down to the last mile?
KRISTOF: I think that critique is absolutely right. You know, way too much aid ends up being digested by these beltway bandit companies in the
Washington area. And I think we get a lot more bang for the buck if more aid we're going directly to nonprofits in these various places in the
world. And, you know, USAID has recognized that. There has been an improvement in providing direct assistance, but it's still, I think, that
is a very legitimate critique.
[13:50:00]
And, you know, I also think it's a legitimate critique that Trump and Musk have made that a lot of aid, you know, isn't as effective as it could be,
that the organization could use reform, but what we're seeing right now is not reform, is not making it more efficient, it's just taking a bulldozer
to it and knocking it down.
SREENIVASAN: You know, just last week, Marco Rubio, secretary of state and now acting USAID had said after a six-week review, we are officially
canceling 83 percent of the programs at USAID. The 5,200 contracts that are now canceled, spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve
and, in some cases, even harm the core national interest of the United States.
Again, this is in spite of a judge ruling against the administration that these actions were unconstitutional.
KRISTOF: Yes. I think that there is, you know, a widespread belief that the dismantling of USAID, an independent agency, was illegal and
unconstitutional. I'm glad the judge intervened in that case. He restored e-mail to people on administrative leave, but he did not actually restore
those programs, and I'm not sure how feasible that actually will be.
And, you know, Marco Rubio was saying that these were not in America's interest, but in the past, before serving in the Trump administration, he
made a very compelling argument that the Biden administration should sustain or expand these programs because they were the best way to
challenge China to an influence around the world, to advance American interests, not just our values. And I wish he would listen to what he
himself had advised in the past.
SREENIVASAN: You know, I think there's also sort of an us versus them framing sometimes. I mean, look, in the United States, we have somewhere
about 36 million Americans who are living in poverty, 47 million who are food insecure, right? So, when the administration makes the case that we
should be focusing on assisting our own citizens first, what's wrong with that line of thinking?
KRISTOF: I think we can do a lot more for American citizens. I'm right now in a rural part of the country that has a real needs with addiction. But I
would note that the apparent plan for dismantling USAID and saving billions of dollars is not to put that money into supporting veterans or fighting
addiction. Rather, it seems to be two things.
First, a preparatory effort to make a run at Medicaid and cut funding on Medicaid and perhaps Social Security. And then, that these savings together
would go to extend the Trump tax cuts, 49 percent of which go to the top 5 percent of Americans. So, a lot of this is taking money that is keeping
children alive for 12 cents a day and using that to fund tax cuts for some of the wealthiest Americans.
But, you know, again, this is also keeping Americans safe from Ebola, from avian flu, from polio, from tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is likely to spread.
The U.S. has been a major funder against tuberculosis. And every case of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis that comes to the U.S. costs an
average of $500,000 to treat. It's a lot cheaper to deal with those and limit their spread in other countries rather than to pay $500,000 a case to
deal with it here.
SREENIVASAN: You had really some compelling stories that you shared in the column that you just wrote, but since you've been back, have you had any
updates about what's happened to any of those children?
KRISTOF: So, I've been in touch by WhatsApp with folks, mostly these are former social workers in these efforts to support vulnerable children, and
they were laid off. They've lost their jobs, but they're just still trying to do what they can on their own to keep programs going.
And, you know, unfortunately, the upshot is kids getting more sick. It takes a while for somebody when they don't -- aren't getting their HIV
medication to get more sick when people aren't getting food to get more malnourished for an infection to come along. But that is happening. And so,
what I'm hearing is that there is going to be, you know, a real tide of disease and mortality in the coming months.
SREENIVASAN: Economist for The New York Times, Nick Kristof, thanks so much for joining us.
KRISTOF: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:55:00]
AMANPOUR: A report from the front lines there. And finally, tonight, with the arrival of the Spring Solstice, millions of Iranians worldwide are
celebrating the new year or Nowruz, Afghans too. Despite the rising regional tensions, rays of light are still seeping through, a culture that
seeks to humanize and educate about a people and their ancient heritage.
On Broadway right now, the "Song of the North" is bringing to life the legendary "Shahnameh," "The Book of Kings." Nearly 500 puppets have played
to packed theatres across three continents, showing how art and culture can bridge even political rifts. Happy Nowruz, Happy Spring Solstice to all who
celebrate.
That's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us
online and all-over social media and our website.
Thanks for watching. Goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
