July 28, 2023

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, HOST: Hello, everyone, and welcome to AMANPOUR & Company. Here is what is coming up.

With African heads of state gathered in Russia, we look at Putin’s strengthening alliances and what it might mean for the war.

Plus —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLEKSANDRA MATVIICHUK, NOBEL PRIZE WINNING RIGHTS LAWYER: Russia attempts to break people’s resistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — Ukraine continues to suffer the horrors of that war. My conversation with those fighting for accountability, the Nobel peace

laureates.

And —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LINA KHAN, CHAIR, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: We, at this moment, have an even more important job to do to be vigorously enforcing the anti-trust

laws, protecting fair competition, preserving open markets.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — a new approach to corporate mergers. Walter Isaacson explores new rules which aim to prevent harm to workers.

Then —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — as disco diva Grace Jones has a major moment at 75. We look back at Christiane’s fascinating conversation with the living legend.

And finally —

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: — another musical treat. Nicola Benedetti, one of the most acclaimed violinists of her generation joins me with her violin.

Welcome the program everyone. I’m Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.

Ukraine is continuing to make gains in the south after its counteroffensive appears to be ramping up. This as Vladimir Putin post African leaders at

the summit in St. Petersburg. The Russian president is painting his country as a “reliable food supplier to Africa.” Yet, he pulled out of that crucial

grain deal and continues to attack the important port city of Odessa. At the summit, Putin also said that he is “carefully considering a peace plan

proposed by African leaders.

Meanwhile, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un is hosting Russia’s defense chief in Pyongyang in a further the show of support.

So, what might these alliances that Putin forging mean for the war? Anne Applebaum is a historian and staff writer at “The Atlantic.” She has

written extensively on the rise of authoritarianism, and she joins me now from Warsaw.

Anne, it’s always great to have you on the show. So, let’s talk about this Africa summit that is just wrapped up in St. Petersburg. 17 African leaders

attended it compared with 43 in 2019, and they issued a few joint statements, one of unity, I’ll read that you, Russia and African countries

agreed to pursue compensation for colonialism, return of cultural affects, et cetera.

But then, the chair of the African Union goes on to say, Putin’s graine offer is not sufficient. Obviously, this grain offer, after he pulled out

of the grain deal with Ukraine, saying that Russia alone can supplement grain to African countries. The chair says a cease fire is needed and then,

went on to say, Putin has shown readiness to negotiate with Ukraine and now the “other side needs to be persuaded.”

What should be read into this summit, its outcome, and Russia’s continued influence in Africa?

ANNE APPLEBAUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: So, I think, first of all, we can read into this summit the fact that Putin is losing influence in

Africa. This has been true for some time. And I think the ending of the grain export arrangement with Ukraine and the bombing of the port in Odessa

has had an impact. And you’ve heard several African leaders criticize him for that.

And I think the — you know, the Russian propaganda is beginning to fall apart because propaganda works when there is some grain of truth to it or

when there’s something about it that people want to believe. But the fact is that Putin is destroying the grain trade. He has created much higher

international prices, and that is hard to hide.

And so, you have a series of leaders who are really no longer willing to meet with him and are no longer willing to repeat what he has been saying.

Russia still has a lot of influence in Africa, partly through the Wagner Group, which is another intriguing and strange, you know, aspect of this

whole story. The Wagner Group keeps several African dictatorships. And so, they also have an interest in maintaining their links to Russia. But I’m

not sure that this summit is really, you know, a demonstration of Russian strength or Russian influence.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. The biggest takeaway, it appears for many, including myself is the photo of the former head, the current head, I don’t know what

his role is right now, of Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin. We do know that he seems to be alive and well thus far in St. Petersburg. And there you see

him standing with a Central African Republic representative.

You talk about the role and the relationship between Wagner and these African countries. Once again, it does appear to not only question what, if

any, response Putin will have against Prigozhin given that failed mutiny, but also, the power that he does seem to wield with these countries.

APPLEBAUM: So, one of the things I think we failed to understand, or some people failed understand, was the importance that Wagner has for Putin and

for the kind of Kremlin network more broadly. Wagner is Russia’s foreign policy in Africa. Wagner is also probably the source of a lot of money for

Putin cronies. It is not so easy to just cut him off or get rid of him. And that, you know, they created him over many years as a kind of, as I say, a

sort of alternate form of foreign policy.

You know, he does the dirty work in Africa. He supports dictatorships, he sends in mercenaries to help people out. And at the same time, he controls

supposedly a gold mines and other kinds of natural resources and exploits them, and then that money goes back to Moscow. And just eliminating that

turned out to be too difficult, even when — even after he ran that extraordinary rebellion.

And so, I think what we are seeing is, again, the development — with the visible, I should say, development of cracks within the Russian leadership,

I mean, there were probably already there, we just weren’t able to see them quite so clearly, you know, different people have different interests and

they’re beginning to compete with one another.

GOLODRYGA: So, what does this say about Putin’s mindset right now? Not only is he managing a war that clearly didn’t go as he had planned, but

also, now, the aftermath of this failed mutiny? There is new reporting from “The Washington Post” this week, from sources in U.S. intelligence,

confirming that Vladimir Putin seemed to have just frozen for 24 hours or so when this mutiny was taking place, Even though he apparently had been

given a heads up.

Your recent piece on the rebellion argued that after spending years of cultivating public apathy, the Russian president found his people

indifferent to his own faith. I recently interviewed Russian journalist, Mikhail Zygar, and he said that all of his sources confirmed that Putin’s

decision are a bit strange. How should we be interpreting all of this?

APPLEBAUM: Yes. So, just to explain what I wrote, for many, many years the Russian state has been encouraging citizens to be apathetic, and they do

this deliberately. So, they do it by admitting confusing and contracting propaganda, by discouraging people from forming any kind of independent

groups or associations, you know, never mind politics or political parties.

And then, when there was a real attack on the Russian state or on the Russian army, it meant that citizens were apathetic about that too. Even

more strange was when Wagner and his men were in Rostov, which is the — essentially, the military capital of the city from which the operations in

Ukraine are being run, they — passerby and people walking down the streets seem to welcome them. They brought them bottles of water and ice cream and,

you know, all kinds of other things.

You know, and it’s — it was almost as if, you know, finally there were politics to follow. There was an interesting — someone interesting to

listen to who is saying something a little bit different and they seem to almost, you know, interested in intrigued by it. Because he shut down

conversation so much, almost any appearance of change or anything out of the unusual suddenly becomes important and significant.

And I think — you know, I think the Prigozhin rebellion, the after effect of that, you know, continues. People are now — they want to know what’s

going to happen next. Who is going to be the next challenger? Where will the next crack become visible, you know? So, in a way, he — the Prigozhin

rebellion restarted a political conversation in Moscow that seemed to have been pretty dead.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And Kremlin propagandists for a good 24 hours didn’t even know how to respond to this attempted mutiny because they were given no

direct orders from the Kremlin as to how to respond. Go ahead.

APPLEBAUM: Yes. No direct orders. And Putin himself left the capitol, he disappeared.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, yes.

APPLEBAUM: So — you know, so, you know, the — you know, first giving a speech in which he, you know, virtually compared himself to Nicholas II. He

started talking about the Russian revolution, which was clearly on his mind. And then, he vanished, which left people speculating he left the City

of Moscow, preparing for an invasion. People were digging ditches outside of the city. They were given a curfew and told to stay home from work. So,

it was a — it left its mark as, I think, probably the first time that the war in Ukraine has really been brought home to people in the capital city.

GOLODRYGA: And it still raises questions about his — the actual popularity he has among Russian people at home. It’s very difficult to

obviously conduct polling in the country. You talk about the apathy that is felt throughout the country. He still seems to be quite popular, at least

with some part of the population.

But I was really struck, and it’s almost comical if this wasn’t a reality, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said today on RT

(ph), “The Ukrainians hate and are very aggressive towards Putin exactly because they want him to be president.”

So, we can question, I think, how Russians feel about Vladimir Putin. I would argue that it is pretty apparent how Ukrainians feel about him.

APPLEBAUM: It is pretty apparent. I mean, that’s just — that’s, you know, weird form of Russian propaganda where they try and project their own

problems onto other people, you know. So, maybe what she’s trying to tell us is that, Russians are not respecting Putin enough, and therefore, she —

you know, she’s trying to find hatred somewhere else. I mean, who knows? They’re thinking is now very convoluted.

And as I say, one of the aspects of Russian propaganda that makes it hard for outsiders to understand is that they deliberately say things that are

confusing and contradictory precisely in order to make people to say, right, I have no idea what is going on, I have no idea what is true,

everything is fake, I’m staying away from politics, I don’t want to know anything at all. And I think that was, you know, yet another contribution

to that genre.

I mean, remember, the Russians are now in a very difficult position of having to explain why it is that the Ukrainians are making progress, why it

is they haven’t given up, why they aren’t Russians? Remember, the war began because Putin said, you know, that Ukraine is part of Russia. You know, as

soon as we walk into Kyiv, everybody will give up. None of that has happened. It is been more than a year and a half. And they need

explanations, and they’re beginning to run short of them.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And they’re going to have to explain somehow why Russia is now apparently weapon shopping in the hermit state of North Korea as well.

Anne Applebaum, always great to have you on and your perspective. Thank you. We appreciate it.

APPLEBAUM: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, my next guests are working hard to prevent the “bad guys,” as Anne Applebaum describes them from winning. They are the 2022

Nobel peace laureates. Oleksandra Matviichuk from Ukraine Center for Civil Liberties, Aleksandr Cherkasov, the chair of Russian Human Rights Center

Memorial, and Kanstantsin Staradubets, representing jailed Belarusian human rights activist, Ales Bialiatski.

Earlier this week, I sat down with all three together for the first time since being awarded the Nobel Prize. The conversation was hosted by the

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I started by asking Oleksandra how many crimes her organization has documented in Ukraine thus this far.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OLEKSANDRA MATVIICHUK, NOBEL PRIZE WINNING RIGHTS LAWYER: Working together since the 24 of February until now, we have in our database more than

45,000 episodes of war crimes. 45,000, it is an enormous amount. But still a tip of iceberg because Russia uses were crimes as the methods of war

fear. Russia attempts to break people’s resistance and occupy Ukraine by the tool which I call the immense pain and suffering of civilian

population.

It is very important to understand what we are doing, literally. We are not just documenting violations of (INAUDIBLE) conventions, we document human

pain. Human pain when Russian troops deliberately shelling residential buildings, schools, churches, hospitals, attack evacuation corridors,

manage filtration camp system, organize forcible deportations, commit murders, tortures, rape, abductions and other kind of offenses against

civilians.

And we do it not just (INAUDIBLE) archives. I have a huge respect to the work of historians, but I’m not a historian. I’m a human rights lawyer. We

document it for justice. To have Putin and all Russians who committed these crimes by their own hands accountable. And this is important, not just for

Ukrainians, not just for people who have already affected by Russian war crimes, but also for people who can be next Russian target.

GOLODRYGA: Aleksandr, are you worried that whatever replaces Vladimir Putin’s regime could put your colleagues who are still in Russia in even

more danger?

ALEKSANDR CHERKASOV, CHAIR, RUSSIAN HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER MEMORIAL (through translator): You know, we have such experience. Actually, in 1953, there

was one man who died that year. And that man was surrounded by accomplices, by allies, by his retinue. And all of them, all these people (INAUDIBLE)

the regime that that man who died created.

At first, among them was a national security director, Lavranti Baria (ph). So, let’s not be afraid of the worst things that might happen in future,

otherwise, the future will come without us. Just like Homer Simpson said, our children are our future unless we stop them.

Don’t stop children.

GOLODRYGA: Homer Simpson, our national poet laureate. Well, I wish I had some of your optimism. So, I appreciate hearing that.

Kanstantsin, we talked about Ales and his wellbeing right now. In May, a friend told CNN that contact had been lost with him for a month. Also, that

month, more than 100 Nobel laureates had called for his release. And at the Nobel lecture, given by Natallia Pinchuk in her husband’s honor, when she

received the prize, she shared some of his thoughts where he said, I recently had a short dialogue, when will you both be released? They asked

me. I am already free, in my soul, was my reply. My free soul hovers over the dungeon and over the maple leaf outlines of Belarus.

What does that say about Ales’ spirit and the foundation which was organized in 1996 in its fight for the human right situation compared to

where we stand now?

KANSTANTSIN STARADUBETS, COORDINATOR, VIASNA HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER: That says that Ales — just like Aleksandr’s (ph) colleague, Olec Karlov (ph),

who stayed in Russia, Ales stayed in Belarus. And he knew he would be arrested, and it takes immense courage to do that.

But it also actually freeze you even if you are in prison, and that’s what he described to me in the quote that you just read out, that he is actually

not in captivity spiritually, and his mind he is free. And that is because he believes, he strongly believes in what he preaches, in what he has done

all these years. And he also is — feels this direct responsibility for the organization that he founded 27 years ago. He understands how important the

work of human rights defenders in Belarus is. How important it is to continue to be — to lead this moment of human rights, whether you are in

prison or free.

GOLODRYGA: It is symbolic, as we noted, that a Ukrainian, a Belarusian and a Russian are co-laureates are. And, Oleksandra, some Ukrainians do not

agree with that decision. I have heard from people online and on Twitter that they were surprised that even the three of you would be here together.

How do you respond to that criticism?

MATVIICHUK: First, I want to explain to the audience why some part of Ukrainian society criticized this decision of Nobel committee, because

sometimes it’s not understandable for International Community. But when Ukrainians see this title, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus together, it is

admittedly refer us to the Soviet Union time and this big myth about sister nations, which was a huge lie because there was no sister nations, only one

nation was dominant, only one language was dominant and only one culture was dominant.

And now, when we are in war, and Russia and Belarus, our country’s aggressors, it has become extremely painful to accept this lie. And that is

why I explain to Ukrainian society that this is award not about countries, this award is about people. And if we want to refer to the Soviet Union,

let’s refer to the dissidents’ movements, when people who stood up their voice for freedom from different countries work together, build invisible

ties, even for their own societies and fight jointly against common evil who try to dominate in our part of the world.

And now, we see how history is repeated. I work with Russian and human — Russian and Belarusian human rights defenders for years, before this war

started, in 2014, and even more intense when the war started. after 2014. And I am extremely grateful for my human rights colleagues that when I

applied for them, with hundreds requests of how (INAUDIBLE) Ukraine political prisoners, about finding about of illegally detained Ukrainians

civilians, about doing something in unbelievable circumstances in which they work, they always respond to me with help and assistance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: A really powerful and inspiring conversation I had there with the three of them. I was really honored to be joining them.

Well, back here in the U.S., there are bold new guidelines in the works to scrutinize blockbuster business deals and ensure that there in the interest

of consumers and competition. Assistant attorney general, Jonathan Kanter, and chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, joined Walter

Isaacson to discuss.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Jonathan Kanter and Lina Khan, welcome to the show.

LINA KHAN, CHAIR, FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: Thanks for having us.

JONATHAN KANTER, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ANTI-TRUST: Great to be here.

ISAACSON: Let me start with you Mr. Kanter, which is for more than a century, anti-trust law has been built on two pillars, ever since the

Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the Clayton Act, and U.S. v. Standard Oil, it has been harm to consumers and another standard in the balances have been harm

competition in general.

I want to explain the new guidelines you’ve issued and it seems to me that pretty much along the outlines of older guidelines, except for the add one

component, which is harm to workers. Is that about right?

KANTER: So, the guidelines are not law, there are simply a reflection of the current modern case law. And modern case law applies to workers, but

the guidelines are not just about harm to workers, it’s a central feature, but it is also about recognizing modern realities.

For example, the guidelines talk about technology platforms. The guidelines talk about rollups of serial acquisitions. The guidelines talk about

entrenchment of monopoly power, recognizing that sometimes a firm that has a really dominant position can acquire a competitive threat. All of those

are ways in which competition presents itself.

So, when we started writing these guidelines, we had an important question. The important question is, how does competition in this market present

itself? And does this merger threaten that competition? And that question is going to be different for every industry, it’s going to be different for

every merger. But we have to start with the facts. We have to start with the deep, sophisticated understanding of how competition works.

And it works differently than it did 50 years ago. Phones don’t have rotors. Documents are not stored in fall cabinets. And with the exception

of my dad at the time, people don’t stop and ask the gas station for directions. Things have changed, and that is great, but we need to make

sure we understand those changes with a deep level of sophistication and we are addressing competition as it is, not as it was.

ISAACSON: Chair Khan, you’ve talked about decades of retreat. And I think what you mean is retreat from that standard, not of harm to consumers, but

of harm to competition and in general. Tell me about that decade of retreat.

KHAN: So, look, we look very closely at the empirical evidence and how markets have evolved over recent decades. We always want to make sure that

we are enforcing the law in a way that is fully reflecting the reality of how businesses of today’s economy are competing and are growing

There has been empirical evidence and research showing that, unfortunately, markets have become consolidated recent decades. And so, we, at this

moment, have an even more important job to do to be vigorously enforcing the anti-trust laws, protecting fair competition, preserving open markets.

Because Congress told us that we have a preference for competition over consolidation, competition benefits consumers through providing better

quality products, lower prices, it can benefit workers by providing them more options and opportunities and better wages.

And then open markets is how we have remained at the forefront, globally. Where breakthrough innovations and incredible technological feats have been

produced in America in good part because of our free enterprise system of open competitive markets, and that is what we are charged with preserving.

ISAACSON: Let me ask you about the old phrase, that competition always helps consumers. The shirt I’m wearing, for example. I got it it’s Amazon

Essential, so are my trousers. I used to get those shirts from Lands’ End, I used to get them from Dockers. But as I got them through Amazon, they

noticed my buying habits and gave me cheaper, easier ways to do it.

It seems to me that is good for the consumer even though it is really bad for Lands’ End and Dockers. Do we focus on things like a platform, like

Amazon using its information to be anticompetitive or do we look at, hey, I kind of feel guilty about wearing these things, but it is good for me as a

consumer?

KANTER: So, as a general matter, we look very closely at the facts and specifically whether businesses are engaging in any anticompetitive

practices to maintain their monopolies in illegal ways. It is under the anti-trust laws, not illegal to be big, it’s not illegal to be dominant.

What is illegal is becoming a monopoly or becoming dominant in ways that are involving illegal business practices, that can be illegal mergers, it

can be illegal conduct.

And so, we are very focused on whether there has any been any illegality in terms of how firms are using their market power to block out competition

and make it difficult for consumers and workers to have more options.

ISAACSON: Mr. Kanter, following up on that, one of your great predecessors as the Anti-Trust Division at the Justice Department was Joel Klein, and he

and the lawyer, David Boies, brought this landmark case against Microsoft, which is just what Chair Khan has been talking about. They use their

dominance and the desktop operating system of PCs to get into the browser business, maybe even get into the search business.

Tell me how that case, which I think is the last really big case to be decided by a lot of courts, how that affects what can do in the Justice

Department.

KANTER: Absolutely. That was a historic case brought by our predecessors here at the Anti-Trust Division. And it established the important principle

that a platform could be a market. And in a case of Microsoft, it tells us a lot about today’s technologies.

So, that case dealt with emerging threats. They called nascent threats at the time. The idea that something could come along and just disrupt the

operating system and lead to a new generation of technologies that can provide benefits that we couldn’t even imagine at the time. And so, the

Justice Department brought a case to protect those new innovations and give them the opportunity to reach consumers, to reach entrepreneurs, to reach

businesses.

And so, Microsoft establishes the principle that if you have a dominant platform and you harm competition by squashing emerging competitive

threats, emerging innovations and emerging technologies, that can be illegal under anti-trust laws, the same anti-trust laws that were used to

address Standard Oil and AT&T.

ISAACSON: So, let me ask you, Chair Khan, if you look at things like what happened to Microsoft, that allowed Google to come along and do a Chrome

browser and a search engine. But now, Google is bundling all of these things. How do you apply at the FTC these precedents that were set by the

Justice Department cases?

KHAN: So, we look very closely at all of the relevant legal precedents. There have been a whole set of seminal anti-trust cases over the last few

decades and we’ve gotten from the courts really important legal decisions that have been applying what are, you know, century old anti-trust laws and

new contexts. And that’s the beauty of our anti-trust laws, is that they establish legal principles about appropriate ways to be competing and it’s

up to us as enforcers to be applying those principles in all sorts of context.

So, for example, last year, the Federal Trade Commission sued two pesticide manufactures because they were engaging in this pay to block schemes that

were blocking generic producers from the market. And as a result of that, farmers had to pay billions of dollars more than they would have, and we as

the food paying public also ended up paying for those practices. So, we can see how when you have dominant firms that are engaging in practices that

are designed to block out competition that can have very negative effects, and you can see that in digital markets, you can see that in agriculture

markets. It’s really economy wide that we, as anti-trust enforces, are charged by Congress to be vigilant and be protecting and preserving open

competitive markets.

ISAACSON: Chair Khan, as you know, probably full well, you’ve come a bit of a lightning rod as a symbol of much more aggressive, or at least more

aggressive anti-trust enforcement. And it has become a science that your anti-business because of this, even Larry Summers, who was President

Obama’s treasury secretary, you know, said that you’ve created a war on business. Those are his words. And certainly, especially Republicans but

some Democrats even are trying to cut back a bit of FTC funding and guidelines.

How do you respond to the fact that really does seem like you are hurting business in the way?

KHAN: So, look, anti-trust stood for — what anti-trust was really about is preserving open competitive markets. And when you have open competitive

markets, that guarantees that the best ideas win. What we want is an economy and a market that Congress prescribed where, if you have a good

idea, you are able to bring it to market, you are able to compete on the merits.

And so, if consumers like your product, you’re actually able to succeed in the marketplace, we at the FTC here routinely form businesses, including

independent pharmacists, independent grocers, people across sectors who come to us and tell us that for them as businesses it becomes very

difficult to compete if they are getting muscled out of the market by monopolists who might be engaging in anticompetitive practices. And so, we

make a very concerted efforts to be hearing from businesses because we understand that robust anti-trust enforcement is really the way that we’re

going to see the type of competition and the type of innovation that for decades has kept America at the forefront and delivered significant

innovation. Preserving of competitive markets, as Congress has prescribed, is the way to keep doing that.

ISAACSON: Do you think these new guidelines are going to go to the Supreme Court at some point? And what do you think the outcomes could be?

KANTER: That’s the beauty of our legal system, is cases move through the courts. But the last time I checked Supreme Court cases do not expire. And

so, cases that were decided right around the time the anti-trust laws were amended, cases like Brown Shoe and cases like Philadelphia National Bank

that established these core principles were designed to interpret the statute.

And guess what? Cases today cite all of those old Supreme Court cases. So, until the Supreme Court reverses itself and unless they do, we have an

obligation to follow the law as it is written, and that’s as interpreted by courts. And that’s exactly what courts are doing. And so, we are going back

to first principles, we’re going back to basics.

This is an exercise in law enforcement, your statues is written by Congress, and for good reason, because competition and democracy,

competition and freedom, competition and economic liberty all go hand in hand, and we’re going to enforce the law as written, as interpreted by

courts, when supported by the facts in order to vindicate those interest for the public.

ISAACSON: Chair Khan, one of the arguments used by — especially the technology companies that want to get together is that we are competing

with China. And that without big companies and the efficiencies that come from that, we’re going to be crushed by China in terms of everything from

A.I. to other technology issues. Does that enter into your calculus?

KHAN: It’s such a good question, Walter, because you’re absolutely right that these arguments that sometimes get made. And this is an area where our

history can be extremely instructive. So, these are very similar arguments that we are being made during the Cold War, where there was pressure on

anti-trust enforcers to hold back and protect domestic monopolies.

And at that moment, America wisely made the choice to trust our system of free enterprise and competitive markets and trust that that type of open

competitive system would out innovate a centralized system of state backed monopolies. And that’s exactly what we saw. In the decades since, we have

seen enormous innovation, we’ve seen American companies really at the forefront globally.

And so, I take a lot of guidance from that history where when we have trusted in our open competitive markets, that is really been what’s best

positioned to us to compete globally, given just to the ingenuity and innovation that American businesses have been able to provide.

ISAACSON: Let me ask both of you, starting with Mr. Kanter, to look at the next great big emerging industry and idea, which is artificial

intelligence. We’re competing with China in it, we have hundreds of firms trying to enter the markets and yet, we also have the two big dominant

firms, Google and Microsoft.

Google was allowed to buy DeepMind, which is at the forefront of artificial intelligence. And Microsoft has made a relationship, an investment

relationship and to some extent a partnership with OpenAI. Starting with you, Mr. Kanter, tell me how you all are looking at artificial intelligence

and whether that’s even an economic market that is subject to anti-trust.

KANTER: Yes. So, inflection points in technology are often the most important moment to protect in terms of competition, because that’s when it

become — markets become contestable. But in order to do that, we have to make sure that we understand A.I. at a level of sophistication.

And so, just as in the ’80s, the anti-trust agencies rightly equipped themselves with some of the most talented economists so that we can

understand markets better, and we continue to do that until this day, we need to make sure that we’re also bringing the technological expertise to

understand these technologies with greater sophistication. And we’re doing that by hiring data scientists, A.I. experts.

But let me also say, one of the big importance changes with A.I. is that data is no longer a byproduct of the technology, it is the product of the

technology. And so, we are in a world where artificial intelligence lives and breathes massive amounts of data.

And so, to the extent that markets are not contestable and competitive across the economy, including in health care, including in energy and

agriculture, the A.I. technologies that are going to be built are going to tip only to the firms that have the greatest amount of data and

information.

So, it is extremely important that in order to usher in a competitive and vibrant revolution of new technologies for A.I. that our markets are

competitive and access the data and information is something that is accessible broadly and that we don’t just allow the small number of players

with the most data to tip and win those markets uncontested.

ISAACSON: Chair Khan, let me ask you to comment on that notion of data and whether or not data can be leveraged to create dominance in the field or

whether it should be more open in the future?

KHAN: So, it’s certainly true than in digital markets in particular we have seen data become a critical input where you have to have access to

data in order to be able to scale and in order to be able to compete. And so, just with any other input or critical resource, it is really important

that we are preserving open competitive access to this data, which can be so critical to compete.

You know, Walter, we want to make sure that everybody is clear that the anti-trust laws entirely apply, even in the context involving A.I. I think

sometimes we hear arguments that some of these technologies are emerging in some type of regulatory vacuum, and we think it is extraordinarily

important that the market knows that existing laws prohibiting collusion still apply, existing laws prohibiting discrimination apply, existing laws

prohibiting fraud apply.

And so, there is no way A.I. exemption from the existing laws on the books. And we think it’s especially important given how, revolutionary these

technologies could be, that we are preserving contestability of markets and avoiding any illegal behavior.

ISAACSON: Lina Khan, Jonathan Kanter, thank you so much for joining us.

KHAN: Thanks for having us.

KANTER: Thank you for having me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Well, now we look back to one of our favorites of Christiane’s conversations. Here, she speaks with a cultural giant, the model actress

and musician, Grace Jones. With disco in the midst of a major comeback, the slave to the rhythm singer is back in the spotlight, working with artists

like Beyonce and performing across the globe.

Not a bad way to reach 75, as she did earlier this year. Christiane first spoke to Jones as the Me-Too movement was going global. And the stars

documentary, “Bloodlight and Bami,” revealed her own struggles with child abuse.

In a wide-ranging conversation, they talk about how Jones pushed back against sexism and racism to become the icon she is today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Grace Jones, welcome to the program.

GRACE JONES, MUSICIAN AND ACTOR: Thank you, thank you.

AMANPOUR: It’s good to have you here. And I actually want to start by asking you, given that you have spent your life in show biz, in modeling,

in film, you know, on stage, this hurricane of revelations of sexual abuse, especially against young women coming up through the system. Can you

identify with what’s going on now?

JONES: I totally identify with it because it happened to me when I was going to get my first big part, and it was a small part, but for me it was

a big part. And I already had the part. I remember Ozzy Davis, it was his first film he was directing, and the producer came and said to meet him at

his place because that was not the last word. Ozzy didn’t have the last word. I had to bring my portfolio to him.

And when I got to his house, and I don’t remember his name, thank God. And he poured some champagne. He was in his bathrobe and of course, you know,

took me to a room, which of course I didn’t know his house, and it was his bedroom.

So, with the champagne, even then, at that young age I was, I splashed it in his face.

AMANPOUR: Good for you.

JONES: I threw it in his face, and walked out the door.

AMANPOUR: And they never messed with Grace Jones again?

JONES: And I got flowers the next day.

AMANPOUR: From the same guy?

JONES: Same guy.

AMANPOUR: So, is it a power thing or a sex thing? What is it?

JONES: Well, of course. It is a power thing. It is a power thing, because this person, obviously, can’t get it in the normal route, or he has no

patience, I don’t know. Or he feels he doesn’t have to doing that.

AMANPOUR: Or he’s got control over a young girl’s future?

JONES: And that feeling of I had the last word. That’s what really upset me, it’s I knew I had the role through Ozzy, but to say to me, no, I have

the last word, is what he said. And you don’t get it unless you go through me. Yes.

AMANPOUR: And you threw the champagne, you got the flowers. What about other young girls who you’ve come across, do they – obviously not many of

them have the same set of cahones or temperament as you.

JONES: Well, all I can say, it’s a really difficult call because when you’re in that position, you’re so vulnerable, you are so nervous, you want

this break so badly, because you’ve been banging away at the pavement probably some longer than others, and you’ll finally think, I’ve made it to

the big time. This is my way. The door is open. And now, you have a monster to confront.

AMANPOUR: How much fun was it when you were in your — in the height of your singer, disco, you know that — you owned the stage, and you owned

that world at that time?

JONES: Well, I took a lot of chances. I just did what I felt like doing. I went against if someone said to me, go right, I went left because left felt

better for me, going right fit better for them. So, a lot of times, you’re told to go in a certain direction and that direction, and you’re looking up

to these people, because, you know, they are advising you, for example, but a lot of times they have their own agendas. And —

AMANPOUR: It’s a beautiful picture we’re watching there.

JONES: Follow your — thank you. I just followed my own, because at the end of the day, I’m the only one I can have regrets with.

AMANPOUR: In your memoir, you basically describe racism that you encountered as a young model, and you confronted, you had a heated roul

(ph) with the late John Casablancas, who obviously was the founder of the Elite Modeling Agency.

JONES: Yes.

AMANPOUR: What was the roul (ph) and has this has the situation been resolved?

JONES: I knew there were certain programs that were in place that I was supposed to go in three days, in a week, you know, and have certain

appointments, and there were none. There were just none. And after three days I knew something was wrong. So, I just confronted him. I said, I know

I’m supposed to have appointments. What is what is happening?

AMANPOUR: You mean shoots and things?

JONES: Even just what they call go sees, just even letting the photographers see you and let him make up his or her mind, and I never even

got those appointments. So, I knew something was wrong. So, I just walked in. And I leaned over the desk and I said, I have no appointments. What is

going on? And I actually forced him to tell me.

And basically Beverly Johnson then was a huge model in America, and she was with Johnny Casablancas at the time.

AMANPOUR: Black model?

JONES: Yes, yes. And I just — he said to me, trying to sell a black model in Paris is like trying to sell an old car nobody wants to buy. I never

forget his exact words, quote unquote. He said, “Not even Beverly Johnson can work in this town.” I did go to Paris and I did go with an agency that

absolutely formed an agency with Jerry Hall, myself, Estie Mayhoo (ph) and one other girl who I can’t remember her name.

And we started an agency just with the four of us. And they loved us and they sent us everywhere. Helmut Newton, you know, Hunts Feuluer (ph),

everybody got really excited, Chris von Wangenheim, and then it took off like that.

AMANPOUR: And how long did it take you to get over the abuse that you suffered in your own family? You say, yes, you were crushed, your childhood

was crushed with a bible.

JONES: It was just beatings and overzealous. I’m still not sure if it was over religious zealously or was it sadistic? There is where as — where do

you draw the line of being overzealous or are you just sadistic? I pretend I’m overzealous in reading the bible that makes this one OK, spoil the rod,

spoil the child is what we were told, you know, every day.

AMANPOUR: What gives Grace Jones joy as you embark now into your seventh decade?

JONES: Not yet.

AMANPOUR: No, no, no.

JONES: Still a bit yet to go. But a family I find — you know, my mom just passed and we were best girlfriends. She was really my inspiration.

AMANPOUR: And now, you are not just a mother but a grandmother.

JONES: Yes. Yes.

AMANPOUR: Who would have thunk it?

JONES: So, she’s here. I had to bring her. I had to bring her here. But, you know, she’s not far and it’s wonderful. And in the film there is a part

where she’s being born in the film, and I’m there for her birth and I just happen to be in Paris for her birth doing something else, and she came and

I ran to the hospital and I said, I’m not leaving until she opens her eyes. And this amazing magical moment in the movie where she actually opens her

eyes, all the audience was going woo, wow. Amazing, amazing.

AMANPOUR: Well, that’s a lovely life affirming note to end on.

JONES: Yes.

AMANPOUR: Grace Jones, thank you so much.

JONES: Thank you so much Christiane. I love you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Well, we all love them, both of them actually.

And finally, a musical treat of a different kind. Just like Grace Jones, our next guest also knows how it feels to sell out concert halls around the

world. Here’s a little taster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Nicola Benedetti is a pioneering in much loved violinist. She is returning to our native Scotland as a festival director for the

Edinburgh International Festival, its first female director. And she recently played for King Charles at his Scottish coronation. Nicola

Benedetti joins me now from our studio in London alongside her violin.

I wish I was there to meet you in person. Nicola, thank so much for joining us on the show. You recently began your tenure as director of the Edinburgh

International Festival. It begins next week officially. You are the first woman, and the first Scott to take this job. Talk about your vision for

this new role.

NICOLA BENEDETTI, GRAMMY AWARD-WINNING VIOLINIST AND FESTIVAL DIRECTOR, EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL: Well, first of all, thank you so much

for having me. It has been really the role of a lifetime for me, an opportunity to really contribute to the whole cultural landscape of my home

country, of Scotland.

For me, being a violinist and a classical musician rooted in that art form. It’s about preserving the sanctity and the beauty of these incredible art

forms that have taken centuries to build up and to preserve and to deepen, enrichen at the same time is being absolutely about communities, for

people, speaking directly to people, looking at how we can communicate directly our message to people.

And we are an International Festival. So, we do 300 performances over three weeks, invite nearly 2,000 artists from all over the world. And our message

really is one of absolute diversity, of perspective, diversity of life lived. I’m looking at that whole sort of mythologizing of the broad story

of humanity, which, as we all know, can be done so wonderfully and fully through the language of the arts.

GOLODRYGA: I know you have themed the program to the question of, where do we go from here? And the industry — the whole world obviously coming back

from the pandemic and it’s coming at a time when there is economic hardships, I know facing the music industry as well.

How much of an impact is this all having on your message? And do you get a sense that it is resonating this early in?

BENEDETTI: There is no question that is resonating because artists and audiences alike want to feel that they are a part of something that makes

an impact on people’s lives. They want to feel they can participate in a conversation. And we all need something to look up to and a collective

dream, a collective hope.

Much of the terminology and sort of theming of this year’s festival, of my first festival, was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King’s final book, “Where

Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?” And I think it is so poignant in that book where there’s — he talks about, after so much sort of

legislation and particular things have been put into the nation, but what actually exists inside us? What is our internal and more subtle and perhaps

less easy to control decisions that we make inside ourselves? And it’s that component of what makes us who we are that, of course, the arts does speak

to.

And I always think if there’s a moment where a perspective can be shifted or change for the better, surely, it’s within an arts festival where every

perspective is portrayed.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And you are aiming for inclusivity, that is admirable. I’m just curious how you feel about going about attracting a younger generation

to specifically this genre of music?

BENEDETTI: Well, we have classical music. We have all sorts of music, actually. We have absolutely contemporary music, folk music, jazz music and

we have theater, we have opera, and we have dance. So, we have an incredibly eclectic presentation across all art forms.

I think that it’s always a challenge when you are steadfast in the core of what it is you want to present. So, classical music as an example. How much

would you have to alter that for it to become on the stages of Glastonbury, for example. This art form in of itself has a historic component to it, but

it’s also — it’s often longer, it can often last 45 minutes or an hour.

The most important thing for us to do is shift with the times in terms of environments, make sure that people feel absolutely welcome and that it can

become the ritual of the younger generation, that they can feel that the whole experience is absolutely for them, and that we want them there. And I

will tell you for certain, the older generation that do go to classical music concerts, they want to invite and welcome a multigenerational field

within the concert halls.

GOLODRYGA: Well, you certainly are a wonderful representative, an ambassador for pursuing this mission. How are you going to be balancing it

all as director and I would assume, I hope, your fans still hope that you will continue to perform as well.

BENEDETTI: Yes. It has been interesting year to try to balance these things, being on tour a lot, performing a lot, which takes an immense

amount of concentration, and it is a pressured environment and job. But it’s — there are all energy giving and energy feeding. I am excited — as

excited and enthused and sort of obsessed with the roll with the International Festival in Edinburgh as I am with playing the violin.

So, it’s all about how you feel towards the thing that you are doing. And if it gives you that much energy, there is always a way to work it out. And

underneath it all, it is nothing short of a privilege.

GOLODRYGA: Well, before you take us off in a beautiful melody, a duet there with your colleague, I do want to get you to talk about what the

experience was for you. We’ve seen rave reviews, your performances at King Charles’ Scottish coronation. You played “Farewell to Stromness,” and that

is a much beloved Scottish melody. What was experience like for you?

BENEDETTI: Oh, the occasion is just — I mean, there is no words for it, just the poignancy and the meticulousness and the — I mean, we are talking

about a tradition of the International Festival being 76 years old, that is a tradition that goes back so — I mean, hundreds and hundreds of years.

And I always think that there is something about the ceremonial act of something that is larger than our individual viewpoints, our individual

experiences, something that is focused on, me, me, me to something that is focused on a tradition that has lasted a long time.

For me, I really savor being a part of something ceremonial of that kind.

GOLODRYGA: Well, best of luck in your future endeavors. What a pioneer, you really are. At such, you know, an early stage, still, in your career. I

know you started as a young child. But here you are and you have many, many more years ahead of you. So, congratulations on all of your success thus

far. Best of luck with your future endeavors. And I’d like to invite guests to Geza to join you now in a duet that you will perform for us as we leave

the show.

BENEDETTI: Thank you so much. Thank you.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)