Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview With "Legacy" Co-Host And "Decolonising My Body" Author Afua Hirsch; Interview With "Legacy" Co-Host And "The Earth Transformed" Author Peter Frankopan; Interview With "The Siege" Author Ben Macintyre; Interview With Former World Number 1 Tennis Player Chris Evert; Interview With Former World Number 1 Tennis Player Martina Navratilova; Interview With "Life As We Know It (Can Be)" Author And CNN Chief Climate Correspondent Bill Weir. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired December 24, 2024 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
AFUA HIRSCH, CO-HOST, "LEGACY" AND AUTHOR, "DECOLONISING MY BODY": I think it is so important for us to be honest about the legacy of these people.
And it's actually more interesting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: A fresh look at some of history's most famous figures, from Gorbachev to Nina Simone. Hosts of the podcast "Legacy" ask, have we got
their stories right?
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN MACINTYRE, AUTHOR, "THE SIEGE": It's really a story about ordinary people who get caught up in this appalling situation that they can't
control.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- "The Siege," Author Ben Macintyre takes us back 40 years to the storming of Iran's embassy in London and the dramatic hostage rescue
captured on live television.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS EVERT, FORMER WORLD NUMBER 1 TENNIS PLAYER: And we were the only ones left in the locker room every Sunday during the finals, and we would look
at each other and we finally figured out, you know, we're not only competitors, we're people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: I talk decades of rivalry, friendship, and shared illness with tennis legends Martina Navratilova and Chris Evan.
Also, ahead, how to stay hopeful amid climate despair. CNN's chief climate correspondent, Bill Weir, shares lessons from years of traveling the world.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. As the year comes to an end, many people like to look back and reflect. But the
legacy, so to speak, of 2024 will look different to everyone depending on their experience. How we understand the past often shapes the present. And
tonight, we begin with two guests who think deeply about that process itself.
Historian Peter Frankopan and writer and broadcaster Afua Hirsch co-host the podcast "Legacy," which questions the way we remember some of history's
most revered and feared figures and everyone in between, from Napoleon Bonaparte to Marilyn Monroe, Picasso to Cleopatra.
When the pair joined me here in London, we discussed whether it's time to rethink the way some of our historical perspectives and maybe even
prejudices.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program.
AFUA HIRSCH, CO-HOST, "LEGACY" AND AUTHOR, "DECOLONISING MY BODY": Thank you.
AMANPOUR: So, this is really interesting. What was the sort of origin story? Why did you decide and how did you decide to get together to do
this? Let me ask you first.
HIRSCH: Well, I'm not an academic historian, Peter is, and I've been an admirer of his work for many years, but my interest in history and the
reason why I write and speak a lot about it is because of the way it's shaped our contemporary reality, the impact of some of these heroes,
titans, legends who live on in our curricula, in our films, in our contemporary storytelling, has very -- it's very real.
You know, whether you look at race, class, education, our sense of our identity in the world, you can trace much of it to the ideas we have about
these people. And I think it is so important for us to be honest about the legacy of these people, and it's actually more interesting, the kind of
hagiographies that we are used to seeing.
So, for me, this was a chance to speak to someone who I hugely admire and respect, but with whom I share a slightly different worldview.
AMANPOUR: Well, that's kind of interesting, because I understand that when you first met to talk and discuss, you didn't exactly agree.
PETER FRANKOPAN, CO-HOST, "LEGACY" AND AUTHOR, "THE EARTH TRANSFORMED": Well, but we can still be very polite. In today's world of politicians
shouting each other, you know, having different perspectives is not just OK, it's a really good thing. You know, you love people who can see things
from different points of view.
So, some of the people we've looked at so far, like Napoleon and Cecil Rhodes are hugely complicated, but history is always about legacy. I mean,
here, you know, that better than anyone, Christiane, here on CNN, when we think about, you know, how do we evaluate any personal event from the past,
those things start to shift over time.
So, after we did something, we -- the first event we did many years ago was about whether statues should be taken down. And, you know, I learned a lot,
actually. It wasn't that we disagreed, it was listening to someone who's eloquent, clever, smart about how they see things and what matters to them.
It's a hugely important educational process.
AMANPOUR: So, then let's talk, because you talked about the statues. I will talk about Napoleon in a moment, because that was your first inquiry. But
the Cecil Rhodes statue is a big deal. You're both Oxford knicks, if I can say. You're a current professor. You were a student at Oxford. And Cecil
Rhodes is on a plinth there at one of the colleges. Now, he was taken down in South Africa, but not here in the U.K.
You wrote -- I think you wrote a very famous "Guardian" column about all of these statues --
HIRSCH: Yes.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: -- whether it was Nelson or Cecil Rhodes. What is your feeling today, after all the Black Lives Matter, or the attempt to sort of
recalibrate our look at history, today, or these years later, about the fact that it's still up there? How -- what do you discuss?
HIRSCH: I think we should listen more to the voices of people who want statues taken down and that the idea that removing statues is somehow
destroying history is profoundly dishonest.
Actually, many of these statues were built long after the events they depict and were acts of political propaganda that served a political
purpose. They're not some kind of perfect, pristine monument to history.
And Cecil Rhodes, and the reason why it's great to do a podcast like this, he was actually profoundly controversial in his time. Many of the most
imperialist patriotic Brits at the time thought he was ruining the name of imperialism through his corruption, greed. But he was also a very complex
and flawed person. And I think it's in the nuance that it's actually useful.
And it's not just to remember the past, but it tells us something about society today, who gets a platform to speak, who gets silenced, and I think
the way many of these protesters were actually attacked by the institutions that should have been looking into the claims they were making is an
example of how unresolved a lot of this is, and that's something we discuss in the episodes.
FRANKOPAN: Well, you know, you could make the case that a statue goes up and its aim is to fall one day. It's who takes it down and where and why,
you know.
AMANPOUR: That's novel.
FRANKOPAN: Well, all those statues of the Roman emperors, you know, they all got replaced all the time. In fact, lots had heads that you'd screw
often --
AMANPOUR: No.
FRANKOPAN: -- put somebody's head back on, and mostly that's how it worked. You were great and the good. Those things kept on changing. And if you
could keep your statue up for centuries, you'd either done something really right or something really wrong.
So, you know, when we talked about it, we stood outside by the biceps or red statue, and we kind of went, you know, Oxford is filled with statues.
No one bothers to pay any attention to them, including really important ones, right in front of the Bodleian Library. Most of the students who go
in there will never think twice about who that might be. And so, we kind of -- so statues only become important when we need them and want to become
important.
And the Rhodes statue became a kind of a cypher and a signa for something really important because of Black Lives Matter.
HIRSCH: I mean, if Rhodes spent money on monuments to be named after him so people could remember him, I think the protests against Rhodes and the
demands for Rhodes must all have been the best gift he could have asked for. Because I don't think we'd have been talking about him today if it
wasn't for that movement.
AMANPOUR: And what about Napoleon? Because, you know, I don't know, I think the research says that more books have been written about Napoleon than
Jesus Christ or the Prophet Muhammad. I mean, what is it about him? Ridley Scott has just done a biopic. I don't know whether it's a hagiography, but
it's multiple hours. And you have, you know, you've chosen him as one of your characters.
FRANKOPAN: Well, I think the whole point of something like Napoleon is that even for us today, it's hugely contradictory and difficult. I mean, we
spoke about that, about how, you know, is Napoleon the champion of France or the destroyer of lives across Europe?
You know, he was, on the one hand, restored France's dignity after the revolution, but replaced a king with an emperor, unleashed hell across the
whole of a continent, in fact, across holes of continents.
HIRSCH: And if you look at the very fraught conversations about race that are happening in France, a lot of that is centered on whether Napoleon
should be celebrated or vilified. He reintroduced slavery in the French empire, affecting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people of African
heritage.
And the way that these historical figures is contested is really a proxy for something deeper that we're trying to resolve today about the reason we
have the kind of inequity that we have, the reason that we struggle to talk about history and identity, the reason some people feel they belong and
some feel exclude it's so intimately linked to these histories and the way we talk about them, and I don't think we can progress unless we're more
honest, unless we're willing to lean into the uncomfortable conversation because you can't progress by being comfortable all the time and we're
really, I think, trying to embody that in our conversation.
AMANPOUR: Well, and you have unbelievable figures like Nina Simone and Pablo Picasso, which probably fall into slightly different, you know -- I
mean, they didn't -- well, they did move worlds obviously, but in different ways.
But I guess I want to ask you about your own writings on legacy. You've just, well, recently published a major book on -- basically, on the
climate, haven't you? And it's huge. And it's about our legacy for the future. And there has been so little civilized dialogue for too many
decades. Where do you stand? I mean, if that was one of your podcast subjects, the climate, how would that -- how would our conversation about
it, our examination of legacy and the future fall down, do you think?
FRANKOPAN: Well, I guess it's probably, we'll start with, why did we forget about the natural world? You know, I think before the enlightenment,
biblical texts, every religion thinks about human relationship with the natural world, whether that's to do with animals, with food, with plants,
with water, with drought and famine, floods, and I think that we sort of allowed ourselves to think that we could beat everything with innovation,
with science and with money. And so, some of that question, I think today, is why we've gone through so many red traffic lights.
So, you know, we're now 35 years on from James Hansen giving his warning in 1988 that we had to really deal with a changing natural environment around
us and particularly with global warming. And when we go back through all the different accords in Paris and Rio, et cetera, it all feels like open
goals that we've kept on missing.
[13:10:00]
So, some of that, I think, is what we try to do with this podcast is you start by educating. So, when you listen to our four episodes about Picasso
or, you know, you learn a lot more -- I mean, I -- it's been such an education for me to spend much more time thinking about Cecil Rhodes and
his life I never thought I would want to do. But then, you sort of -- the more you can ingest, the more you can learn, the more nuanced your answers
are going to be.
So, I think with the natural world, it's how do we find ourselves at this place where scientists are talking about biodiversity, collapse and
existential problems for us as a species, how can that suddenly be our world in 2024 and how do we miss all the warning signals before?
AMANPOUR: And your most recent book, "Decolonising My Body," comes after British, where you're essentially exploring your own history and what you
want to tell your daughter. So, tell me what inspired you to write that. Again, it is about legacy. It's about how you were raised to think about
your body, yourself as a middle-class English person versus what families and communities are going through in one of the countries of your birth,
Ghana.
HIRSCH: Actually, listening to Peter speak about his book, they're so closely related because one of the things that's happened to the world is
the destruction and erasure of so many indigenous knowledge systems, and that's been catastrophic for the climate because indigenous cultures
understood living in harmony, avoiding excessive accumulation, understanding we are part of the natural world.
But also, for somebody like me with African heritage, it had a very deep psychological effect because I was growing up in a world that told me that
my African indigenous history was savage, was backward, that becoming more European and colonized was progress. And that legacy is so powerful.
Britain couldn't have maintained its empire through military might. It relied on programming and brainwashing colonial subjects into believing
that being British, being Christian, being European, being capitalist was better.
And we're so far from having unpicked that brainwashing and being able to see objectively the choices that we've made as cultures and communities. I
think the climate crisis is one of the ways we're waking up to the fact that many of those choices were bad, were catastrophic.
And for me, it's also about being a woman, being a woman in the public eye, getting older and realizing I come from a culture that celebrates aging and
women, that regards it as incredible success, becoming more beautiful, having more status.
AMANPOUR: Wisdom.
HIRSCH: Wisdom, power, use in the community. And actually, I live in a society that tells me that aging is bad, that you become less desirable,
less attractive, less useful. And when I really realized that I kind of had a choice, which of these mindsets I would embody as I grow older, it was a
complete no brainer. I thought, would I choose the culture that tells me I'm useless and unattractive or the one that celebrates me?
FRANKOPAN: Yes.
HIRSCH: And so, that really helps accelerate my journey, and that's what I write about really honestly in the book.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes, yes. What are some of the other characters who you're looking at, your favorites, for instance? I mentioned Nina Simone and
Picasso, have you done those already?
FRANKOPAN: We're recording them just next week.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FRANKOPAN: But then, Gorbachev as well.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
FRANKOPAN: Again, you know here in the West is a hero. We see him as the man who helped bring down the Soviet Union rather than how he's seen in
Russia, let alone in China, as the man who destroyed everything. And, you know, Gorbachev was trying to save communism, not to open it up.
So, we've had a lot of discussions. I mean, it's one of the fun bits than sitting with Afua and going through our list of who we'd like to do in the
future. And people like Kissinger. You know, the list is enormous through to religious figures back to -- and, you know, what Afua says is really
important that we can't just focus on men from Europe. It's about how do we make that world more diverse?
And, you know, these episodes we do, there are four in each series. So, there are -- there's a lot of information, a lot of learning. But we've
been kicking around quite a few ideas about who comes next. But I've got -- we've got quite a long list.
HIRSCH: And I really enjoyed Picasso, who we have recorded.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HIRSCH: And that goes to the bigger question of art and whether if an artist is very problematic --
AMANPOUR: Yes.
HIRSCH: -- we should stop enjoying their work.
AMANPOUR: People have to tune in to "Legacy" for those episodes. Afua Hirsch, Peter Frankopan, thank you so much.
HIRSCH: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Next to an extraordinary moment in modern history that reads like today's headlines four decades ago right here in London six gunmen stormed
the Iranian embassy and held 26 people captive. The hijackers were opposed to the ayatollah and hope that these actions would lead to autonomy for
Khuzestan, it's an oil rich region of Southwest Iran.
The crisis gripped the world's attention as it unfolded live on national television. Author Ben Macintyre has the inside story in his new book, The
Siege, and he told me all about this riveting tale.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Ben Macintyre, welcome back to the program.
BEN MACINTYRE, AUTHOR, "THE SIEGE": Thank you so much.
AMANPOUR: With yet another rollicking true story that you've turned into an amazing book called "The Siege." And what is "The Siege"?
MACINTYRE: On the morning of the 30th of April, 1980, six armed gunmen burst into the Iranian embassy and took 26 hostages.
AMANPOUR: Here in London?
MACINTYRE: Here in London. Right in central London, overlooking Hyde Park, a beautiful, huge, 56-room Georgian townhouse. And there they held these
hostages for six days. And it was absolutely on every news channel, every newspaper. It was the biggest terrorist incident that had ever happened in
the U.K.
[13:15:00]
But if you ask people what that was about, that story today, most people will think that it was something to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Because
1979, as you know, had been the Iranian revolution. A new government was in place. In fact, these six gunmen were Arabs opposed They were fighting.
AMANPOUR: They were anti-Ayatollah.
MACINTYRE: They were anti-Ayatollah. And what's more, they were bankrolled and armed and trained by Saddam Hussein.
AMANPOUR: Who wanted to overthrow the Ayatollahs?
MACINTYRE: He wanted to destabilize the Iranian regime. This was really the first battle, if you like, in the Iran-Iraq war, which would erupt a few
months later.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, let's just go back a little bit. So, we know who the hostage takers were, the terror group, who were the actual hostages? There
were 26 hostages inside that embassy for six days.
MACINTYRE: They were an extraordinary mixture. Some of them were Iranian diplomats, newly appointed by the Islamic Republic, hardliners for the most
part, ideologues, people who backed the Ayatollah. Then there were Iranians who were employees from the previous regime who had supported the Shah, and
they were nothing like the fundamentalist lot. And then there were people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There were two journalists, two BBC journalists, Chris Cramer and Sim Harris. Chris Cramer, you might know.
AMANPOUR: Oh, I know him very well because many years later he became president of CNN International.
MACINTYRE: That's right.
AMANPOUR: And I remember him telling that story, and he really quite suffered from the anxiety of it for a long time afterwards.
MACINTYRE: He did. He felt a real guilt actually, because he was one of the very few who were released early. And he felt that he had kind of inveigled
his way out. So, it hung over him for a long time. But there were other people who simply had been passing and happened to be in the waiting room.
There was a carpet salesman. There were -- there was a man called Ron Morris who was the major domo in the building who sort of looked after it
all his life.
And in a way, that's what I found fascinating about this book. It's really a story about ordinary people who get caught up in this appalling situation
that they can't control.
AMANPOUR: You really get a sense that there's so much, I don't know if this is the right word, humanity about it. The hostages themselves. I mean, I
know there's the Stockholm syndrome. And then, you talked about another syndrome, the Lima syndrome. In other words, there was a relationship that
developed between them.
MACINTYRE: Very much so. I mean, you get this a lot in hostage situations, where the captors and the captives develop a kind of bond. The gunmen would
give long lectures to these hostages about why they were doing it and why, you know, Arabistan mattered. And by the end of it, even some of the
hardline Iranians were saying, well, they've got a point. They become --
AMANPOUR: You also talk about things that I'd never heard of before. How the hostage -- the captors gave their captives Valium to sort of destress
them at night, sort of canvassed them about what kind of food they should order in to keep them alive.
MACINTYRE: Yes, they'd arrived with medicines that were intended to keep their captives calm. That's not what you associate with sort of terrorism.
They weren't there to -- in a way I've tried to avoid the word terrorist, because it's such a loaded word. These were men of violence, don't get me
wrong, and I'm not defending them, but they did not intend to spill terrible terror in the local population.
They thought they would be able to take these hostages, barter them for political prisoners held in Iran, and then they believed they were going to
go home.
AMANPOUR: But they demanded that, as you say, of this new British prime minister, Maggie Thatcher, who had to prove herself in this case. And
you're right, and others wrote, that this -- the way she behaved was what made her The Iron Lady, what made her, gave her that nickname. So, tell me
what her instructions were to her forces, to her government.
MACINTYRE: This incident showed both the best and you could argue the worst of Maggie Thatcher. I mean, she was incredibly resolute. I mean, she made
it absolutely clear that these gunmen were not going to get what they were demanding. They were not going to be given a plane and simply flown back to
the Middle East.
On the other hand, she was also extraordinarily kind of -- she was also quite pig headed in her way, and she just -- she wasn't -- she didn't give
the police much to negotiate with. And the lead gunman, who was no fool, quickly realized that he was in an impossible situation. And the tension
began to ratchet up almost impossibly.
So, they had not factored in one important, crucial element, which was Margaret Thatcher. This was before the absolute kind of clampdown on no
negotiations with terrorists. But it did also inform Thatcher's attitude towards terrorism generally. I mean, the IRA situation was then critical.
[13:20:00]
And from this moment on, she had absolutely no intention of negotiating with any kind of terrorists. But it was a real gamble on her part. I mean,
had it gone wrong, and she was warned before the final assault took place on the building by the SAS, she was warned there would be 40 percent
casualties, if they were lucky. If that had happened, that would have been the end of Thatcher's regime.
AMANPOUR: And that's if they were lucky. In the event, they had almost total success. So, let's go back to what launched the assault by the SAS.
What was the criterion that they had agreed that if such and such happens, we're going to go in?
MACINTYRE: Thatcher had laid down a rule that if one hostage was killed, negotiations could continue for a time, because it might be an accident, it
might -- there might be some explanation for it. If two hostages were killed, the SAS would go in. And the SAS, bear in mind, had been waiting in
the next door building since the first hours.
AMANPOUR: And they'd been listening, right? They'd planted listening devices.
MACINTYRE: They drilled holes through the building and lowered listening devices down the chimney. Every food packet that went in was also a bugging
device. So, they had a pretty good idea, or thought they did, of where everybody was in the building. But -- so, she said if they start killing
hostages, plural, we go in.
Now, there was brewing tension inside that building, between the extremist gunmen, but also extremists on the Iranian side. There was one particular
character called Abbas Lavasani, who was a member of the Revolutionary Guard.
AMANPOUR: He's a hostage?
MACINTYRE: He was a hostage. But he was also there -- he was really a spy inside the embassy, to maintain ideological control over the other people
employed by that. So, he was a really hard line. In a way, he was just as hard line as the gunmen. They came to conflict. They came into direct
conflict, and he was murdered in the final closing moments of this extraordinary scene. He was killed, and his body was rolled out of the
front door.
But there had been another set -- there'd been a separate set of volley of shots, which was interpreted by the police as being another hostage had
been killed. And so, when Thatcher heard that, she triggered what they called Operation Nimrod, which was an full-scale military assault on the
building.
AMANPOUR: And the extraordinary -- one of the extraordinary factors here is that the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, broke into it, live
programming. Apparently, the first time this had happened?
MACINTYRE: First time it ever happened.
AMANPOUR: And in the midst of a very important snooker match.
MACINTYRE: I was one of 14 million people watching that snooker match as a teenager. I was 17 years old and I was -- we were glued to the final frames
of a snooker match, and it was Hurricane Higgins against Cliff Thorburn. It was as exciting as snooker ever gets. And we were on the edge of our seats.
And suddenly, without warning, it moved straight over to live footage of men in balaclava helmets with machine guns breaking into this building,
throwing bombs, what appeared to be bombs, inside, and then sort of dashing inside. It was the most dramatic television anyone had ever seen.
There had been footage of extraordinary events, you know, the killing of JFK and the moon landing, but never live television that entered
everybody's sitting room at the same time. Not just on the BBC, on all three channels, and there were three whole channels then, all three of them
broke live to this story.
AMANPOUR: And the result was what? Of all the hostages who had been taken, how many were rescued?
MACINTYRE: All but one. So, there was Abbas Lavasani, the Revolution Guard who was killed. Another hostage was killed in the crossfire, but all the
other hostages were rescued. It was an astonishing military achievement, and it catapulted the SAS to prominence. They became a sensation.
People queued up. I mean, young men began queuing up outside recruitment centers saying, give me a balaclava and a machine gun and I'll go and do
this. And in a way, the SAS has struggled with that ever since. The tension between the celebrity of this secret unit and the need for secrecy, you
know, it's hard to be both.
AMANPOUR: Of the captors of the group that, that started this, how many of them survived?
MACINTYRE: One. Five of them were killed by the SAS. The one survivor, and we were talking about Stockholm syndrome, concealed himself among the women
hostages inside. Of course, we didn't talk about the women. There were six women inside this building whose stories have never been told before.
AMANPOUR: Why?
MACINTYRE: They were secretaries. They were people who'd served the old regime. They'd been there under the Shah's regime. And there's one
particular woman called Roya Kaghachi. Who was extraordinary. I mean, she was the senior secretary in the embassy. And as anybody knows in an
embassy, the most important person running the whole place is the senior secretary. She knew exactly how the whole building ran, and she managed to
keep everybody calm.
But as they were taking out that the one surviving gunman, he hid among the hostages as they were being taken out, and they protected him. They, some
willingly, clearly, clustered around him to try to protect him. And he survived. He served a long, long sentence in Britain. He served for
terrorism offenses.
AMANPOUR: So, all that happened. What was the result of that?
[13:25:00]
MACINTYRE: It was a moment when hostage taking had become -- and particularly hostage taking inside diplomatic premises, had become a kind
of rage, if you like with terrorists. It was the sort of fashion of the day.
After this, it barely happened again. It's very interesting. It had a complete deterrent effect. It didn't stop terrorism at all, but it meant
that the sort of, as it were, the plates of terrorism were beginning to shift. The IRA were also watching television that bank holiday Monday. They
were paying very close attention to what it -- what was happening. Again, they didn't really take hostages again after this. It had an extraordinary
deterrent effect.
Thatcher, as we said, was at the beginning of her premiership. The Falklands conflict erupted quite soon afterwards. And there is an argument
to say that it was Thatcher's experience with the military, this highly successful operation that rather shaped her attitude towards that conflict.
Some of her sort of gung -- rather gung-ho attitude towards that emerged.
And ever afterwards, she would be pictured by newspaper cartoonists in sort of full combat gear, abseiling down the outside of Big Ben. You know, it
became a kind of -- it became a motif for her premiership. And she was incredibly proud of it.
AMANPOUR: There was another hostage who also worked in the -- he was the guard.
MACINTYRE: PC Trevor Lock.
AMANPOUR: He was part of the diplomatic security detail. And he was one of those obviously kept, and kept captive. But he had a gun in his coat or
under his arm, attached to his body, that he never revealed. Tell me about that.
MACINTYRE: Well, this was an era, 1980, when British policemen, on the whole, were not armed. I mean, the ordinary beat policeman didn't carry
guns. But if you were a protection officer, you were -- you carried a revolver. He did not want to be a kind of frontline cop. He wanted to have
a quiet life. And yet, he is, in a way, the hero of this whole story, because when the gunmen attacked, he was supposed to be standing guard
outside. Standing guard is a rather energetic word for what Trevor was doing. Trevor was having a cup of coffee inside.
And as they burst through, firing machine guns, the glass from the shattered security door went straight into his face. So, he was covered in
blood. But as he staggered back, he managed to press the emergency button on his lapel. They began -- the gunmen began searching everyone they could
see, but they didn't find his gun, which he kept under his tunic. He kept it under his tunic for the next six days.
AMANPOUR: Why? Why didn't he use it?
MACINTYRE: Because he calculated that had he pulled it out he would've been shot dead. They would all have been shot dead. These guys had machine guns
and hand grenades that against a pistol, a 38 Smith and Wesson. On the other hand, that -- he did pull the gun in the end. I'm not going to give
away how --
AMANPOUR: No, don't. Spoiler alert.
MACINTYRE: -- he pulled the gun.
AMANPOUR: Yes, yes.
MACINTYRE: But, like Chekhov's gun, it plays a very important part in the very final denouement of this story. And Trevor's an extraordinary man. I
mean, he was awarded the George Cross for what he'd done. But this gives you a measure of him. He immediately lost it. Because he put it in his
wife's sewing basket and forgot where he'd put it.
AMANPOUR: Do you know what's happened to that group or to the rights of that group in Iran?
MACINTYRE: This is one of the, sort of, ironies of this story, really, which is that that campaign, that attempt to win autonomy for that oil rich
part of Iran is as obscure and forgotten today as it was 43 years ago. Terrorism doesn't work in that context. It didn't achieve what they wanted.
The Arab minority is still a thoroughly second-class group within Iranian society.
In fact, many people have never heard of the Arab minority in Iran. It comes as complete news to them. And but for an accident of history,
Arabistan, as they called it, would have been another Kuwait, another Qatar. It would have been a very, very oil -- small, oil rich state. So,
this is the way history works.
And yes, I mean, in a way, the whole episode achieved nothing.
AMANPOUR: Ben Macintyre, thank you so much. "The Siege."
MACINTYRE: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Well, while some history might be forgotten, other stories are etched into the record books. That's certainly the case for my next guest.
Tennis stars Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova had one of the great sporting rivalries of all time, each holding the top spot as world number
one, each winning 18 major singles titles.
Fierce competition then became close friendship, and that took on a whole new dynamic when they were each diagnosed with different forms of cancer. I
spoke to them earlier this year about the twists and turns of their journey together.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, welcome to the program. I want you to take me back just for a moment to the finals of the French Open when
you both presented in a joint capacity, the female trophy. It was to Iga Swiatek as she had won.
[13:30:00]
CHRIS EVERT, FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE TENNIS PLAYER: You know, it was an honor. I have to say, I have to be honest, I was not on the roster to
present that trophy on this big 50th for me. Martina was on the roster. And when Martina heard that it was my 50th anniversary, she quickly went to the
French Federation and said no, no, no. Chrissy has to present this with me. It's her day too. So, that's how generous of a friend she was. And we both
got to present it, which was great.
So, it kind of was glorifying, you know, not only the fact that it was my 50th, but also of our rivalry, you know, over all those years. And somehow
some of our most interesting matches were at the French Open. So, it was quite a thrill.
And I'm -- you know, we're so far away from that time period of competing that you feel like kind of a little bit of a stranger when you're walking
on that red clay court.
AMANPOUR: Martina, that's an incredible anecdote that you, you know, suggested that Chrissy join you, but it does talk about your relationship,
your friendship, your rivalry. And I just want to first ask you about the epic battles you fought across a net at Roland-Garros. What stands out to
you about some of those matches?
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, FORMER WORLD NUMBER ONE TENNIS PLAYER: Oh, my goodness. There's so many. There's a few. But let me just say, for me, it
was more about not a 50 at 40-year anniversary, although, it was that, but it was that we were still both there after our epic battles with cancer.
So, it was more symbolic on that front for me, rather than the anniversaries.
But the matches -- I mean, I lost to Chris in 75 in the finals. And then we played doubles together and we warmed up for the final together because we
were the only people left there and we were such good friends. We're like, OK, we'll just warm up for the final together.
AMANPOUR: OK. So --
NAVRATILOVA: And then she, of course, wiped the court with the --
AMANPOUR: That's amazing because when you hear that, you think, oh, my God, they practice together. They were meeting each other in the final. And I
hear you also had lunch together beforehand. Tell me about how that was. I mean, the two of you, does that even happen now? Do players have that kind
of relationship now?
EVERT: Yes. I mean, in our day, it wasn't big business, Christiane, and there wasn't a lot of prize money, and it was just start -- women's tennis
was just forming, you know. So, we all had camaraderie and we traveled together like in a pack. And now, it's big business. I mean, you're talking
millions and millions and millions of dollars, prize money, endorsements, appearances. And these teams are constructed of like five or six people now
with the physio and the hitting partner and the coach and the psychologist. And, you know, it's just so different. Everyone really sticks to themselves
now. So, it can't be done now. No.
AMANPOUR: So, you mentioned the money. I mean, Martina, you're known for having been the first to win a million dollars in prize money in one year.
By 1986, I think you had won $10 million. You broke all sorts of earnings records.
NAVRATILOVA: Well, the growth wasn't really exponential because I think it was 1971 when Billie Jean won $100,000 in a year, and she won 19 out of
like 31 tournaments that she played in. That's what it took to win $100,000.
So, you know, 15 years later, I won a million. And now, they're getting $3 million for winning one tournament. And on top of that, we were not getting
equal prize money with the men at the majors other than the U.S. Open. So, it's just been an amazing growth, obviously, particularly for the women.
And we've been, you know, leading the way for women to ask for more money, better salaries because of what they see on the tennis tour. So, we've been
kind of paving the way for women everywhere, not just in sports.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And of course, you mentioned Billie Jean, your friend occasionally and more often she played against both of you and she was the
early forerunner for this equal pay. What was it like when you two first met each other?
I mean, Chrissy, when you came on the stage, you were a teenager. You had this straight hair pulled in a ponytail. The first with the double handed
backhand. And, you know, lots of young girls looked up to you and I guess were inspired to come into the game. But what was it like sort of blazing
that path?
EVERT: Well, I mean, gosh, I had my first -- I was a top junior player and then I had my first big win over number one in the world, Margaret Court,
when I was 15 years old. And that's probably when it all started. And I think that, you know, Martina and Billie Jean, you know, I was in the era
of two very strong, strong women. But I think if I had one thing that, you know, I can remember the most was that I brought -- I think I helped to
bring a lot of young girls into the sport and say, OK, it's OK. It's -- you know, it's OK to sweat. It's OK to have muscles. It's OK to get mad on the
court. It's OK to be strong.
[13:35:00]
And, you know, but I went out of my way, Christiane, I have to admit, you know, I wore the pigtails with the ribbons and I wore the ruffles on my
bloomers and I wore nail polish. And I mean, I still wanted to be a teenage girl. So, there's always a little -- a push and pull of, you know, I want
to be a high school girl and I want to go out on dates, but I still want to be this tough competitor on the court.
And now, I think that was -- you know, that was something that I think nowadays, you know, look what's happened now. These women tennis players,
they have the most beautiful, strong, muscular bodies. They're tough on the court, they're smart and this is what it's come to from, you know, the last
50 years of progression.
AMANPOUR: Martina, you're the one who pioneered, right, the tough, strong body, the muscles, the diet, the training, right? No? Yes, for women's
tennis, for sure.
NAVRATILOVA: Well, yes, I took it to a different level, but I mean, Billie Jean and Margaret Court, they were training hard. But I think I took it to
another level off court training, you know, the diet as well. But I think nowadays, some of the players are wearing more mascara than Chris ever did.
But anyhow, but they are definitely in better shape because they have to be. Everybody's hitting the ball bigger, harder. The rackets enable you to
swing bigger and you have to be in better shape. You have to be fast.
But yes, the mascara is still there. Chrissy was the epitome of an athlete that was feminine. I was just an athlete. I was never feminine. Never felt
that way. But, you know, always a woman. And competing the best that I could.
And my mom used to tell me wear long sleeves so I would hide my muscles, but, you know, at the end of the day, I'm like, you know, this is what it
is. And I wore sleeveless. So, here we are.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And of course, because you had come from the -- at that time, the communist bloc, Czechoslovakia, they called you a commie, they
criticized your muscles. You were openly gay where you came out, I think it was in 1981, and you got criticism for that or some backlash at the time.
Can I just ask you to take us back to what it took to defect? What made you decide at that young age, you're a teenager, to leave your home and know
that you couldn't go back except under risk of prison and arrest?
NAVRATILOVA: Yes. Well, that was the hardest and biggest decision of my life. I realized that summer, in 1975, that I was not free to make my own
choices. That I was always going to be at the beck and call of the federation or some guy that would decide whether I can or cannot go to the
U.S. Open or the Wimbledon or wherever. So, that's when I decided I can't be beholden to someone and I needed to be free to pursue my dream. And I
know it was a one-way ticket about from my home country. It was brutal.
But you know, I knew that I would be OK. I knew my family would be OK. And that one day we would hopefully be together again. But I knew that was the
only way for me to move forward and not just disappear into the communist, you know, pimple.
AMANPOUR: And, Chrissy, you talk about when Martina did go back, when you both played in the Fed Cup in Prague. It was the first time Martina had
been back since her defection and the media was banned from talking about her and officials didn't mention her name. What do you remember of that?
EVERT: I remember when Martina called me to ask me to play. And for her to say, I really -- it would mean a lot to me if you were on the team with me,
but I can't guarantee your safety. And I was like, oh, whoa. No, no, no. But I jumped at the chance to be with my friend and I was really curious to
see how they would react.
And as soon as we landed, as soon as we got out there on the court before our first match, there was a standing ovation for Martina and women were
crying. Women were crying because Martina did what they always would dream about doing, but were too afraid to do. Martina defected from a country and
found her freedom in America. So, they were very, very, very supportive of Martina, even in the finals when we played Czechoslovakia, ironically, we
play -- at that time it was Czechoslovakia, now it's the Czech Republic. And the crowd was 100 percent for Martina, you know, even against Hana, who
was from that country.
So -- and even the officials, the government officials who were watching, who never uttered her name, and never saw her name in print, at the end,
everybody gave Martina a standing ovation. So, I mean, it really surpassed anything sports. I mean, it went into human life, you know, that
transformed into a whole another area of politics and life and love and the purity of -- you know, of what sports can do.
[13:40:00]
AMANPOUR: Martina, it must have been really moving and vindicating for you?
NAVRATILOVA: It was amazing. It was so bittersweet, you know, because I missed all those years of my family. I missed all those years of being in
my country. But now, I was showing people what can be done and showing up to the government.
I saw my grandmother for the last time when I was going back to the airport when she passed away about two months later, but at least I got to see her
one more time. And then I cried when the plane took off because I could leave, but 13 million people in the country couldn't leave. So -- but at
the same time, we kind of uplifted the people that did come to see us play. And they did end up writing about me in the newspaper. They just could not
write about it.
AMANPOUR: Your rivalry, your friendship also crystallized and took a whole different turn, I think, when both of you got cancer practically at the
same time. It is an extraordinary story. You've done one major interview about it, and it's incredibly, incredibly moving.
Chris, walk us through a little bit of your part of this story, how you both were diagnosed, what it meant to your friendship.
EVERT: You know, I have to say -- before I start that journey, I have to say that I think the last few years of our rivalry is when we really,
really got tight. Because, Christiane, we were the only ones left in the locker room every Sunday during the finals. And we would look at each other
and we finally figured out, you know, we're not only competitors were people. And Martina had feelings and Martina had a private life and Martina
had emotions and so, did I, and we were very vulnerable with each other those last Sundays that we played in the final.
So, I mean, I think that's what started the ball rolling. And then, ironically, you know, Martina got -- had -- got cancer first. But I mean, I
can only tell you about my journey was having ovarian cancer. My sister, Jeannie, died from it. And I found out that I had the BRCA gene. So, you
know, I went in for preventive surgery to basically get a hysterectomy because I had a 40 percent chance of getting ovarian cancer. And they found
out that I did have ovarian cancer and I didn't -- wasn't feeling anything.
I mean, that's why this ovarian cancer is so insidious and so sneaky because you don't feel anything. But I was stage one. I was lucky. So, I
went in, had the hysterectomy. They had to go in more to see if it had spread. It hadn't spread. So, I had my chemotherapy. And unbeknownst to me,
two years later, Christiane, it returned into my pelvic area. So, I had to go through the whole thing again, the surgery and chemo.
And meanwhile, Martina was fighting her own battles with breast cancer twice, I believe, and throat cancer. And so, we were going through -- you
know, she was going through radiation and chemo, I was going through chemo, but we were staying in touch and just thinking about how ironic our life
has been, where things are happening to us, the same things are happening to us simultaneously and that's really how we got so close.
AMANPOUR: It really is an extraordinary story. And, Martina, you also talk about telling Chris and how Chris called you and told you. What did your
friendship mean in terms of, you know, the support that you needed to get through this?
NAVRATILOVA: Well, you know, Chris was one of those few people, maybe two or three people, that I knew -- and I've said this for decades, she's the
one of the three people that I know I could call at 3:00 in the morning and say, I need you, and she would ask, where are you? And I'm on my way. And I
was obviously the same for her.
So, we had this connection for a long time, but this cancer really, in a lousy way, brought us even closer together because we had so much empathy
for each other for such a long time. And now, we were fighting for each other instead of against each other. And so, that support was, I think,
that much more meaningful and strong.
Chris went -- my cancer in 2010 was nothing compared to what Chris went through two years ago and then mine went last year and then Chris returned
again this year. So, she kind of bookended me. And we kind of have that inner radar of when to call or when to text and say, how are you doing?
How's it going? What can I do? It was quite extraordinary. It was almost like twins, you know, like, at my lowest, when I felt the worst, there was
Chris calling or texting and just pick me up right up. And I try to do the same for her.
[13:45:00]
AMANPOUR: You've both been public about it, which is great for other people who are also trying to figure out how to get through these kinds of huge
trials. But you're also both still working. I mean, you're in your late 60s and you're still working a lot because the TV work that you both do around
all the majors is a lot. It's a lot of work. What does work to you mean today, Chris?
EVERT: I want to keep busy, you know, I want to -- I mean, after that second bout of cancer, I think I realized I better start living the life,
the best life that I could ever live. And at that point, I've been so privileged to be in a sport like tennis where I gained so much that I just
want to give now and I wanted to -- you know, I have my tennis academy. I work for ESPN. I have -- I work for the USDA foundation, the charitable
side of it, and I'm still a mom.
And I think, you know, I just want to keep working and keep busy and keep my mind going because I don't know -- you know, we live day to day by the
way. I mean, Martina and I are getting cat scans every three months. You know, that's the telltale sign. So, we're just trying to make the best of
each day that we have, and that is, I don't want to be one of those women who, you know, has their nails done and has their hair done and just, you
know, walks around the block. I want to be vital and I want, I want to be useful, and I want to tell women -- also, I want to be an advocate to go
out and get genetic testing and take care of your body and know your family history. You know, I think Martina and I are both want to get those
messages out.
AMANPOUR: And on the personal side, Martina, you -- both of you have great personal news because you have, with your wife, adopted I believe, Martina,
two young boys. Chrissy, you've just become a grandmother for the first time. What does that mean to you, Martina? I mean, almost, why now? Why
now?
NAVRATILOVA: I'm just trying to follow in Chris' footsteps. You know, I've been doing that all my life. Our lives are so Carla, but now, she's a
grandma. I'm a mom. Let's see. I need to get my roots done. I haven't had a chance to do that the last couple of weeks because of those two boys, but
it's been an amazing experience.
And yes, and for me working and doing the commentary means, as Chris said, staying current, I like to share my love for this sport and try to give
people something that they can learn watching me comment. And just -- it's nice to be connected to the sport. I -- my checkups are only every six
months. And in fact, I'm doing the (INAUDIBLE), I'll be doing my throat cancer checkup.
So, you're always holding your breath, but, you know, then you get the all clear and you just breathe freely for a while and appreciate every single
day that you have.
AMANPOUR: Fantastic to talk to you, both Martina Navratilova, Chris Evatt, thank you for joining us.
EVERT: Thank you, Christiane.
NAVRATILOVA: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And finally, tonight, we've discussed legacies and histories, but we want to finish by looking forward. CNN's Chief Climate Correspondent
Bill Weir, has spent years reporting on the impacts of warming temperatures, but amid much despair, he is still hopeful for the future.
His book, "Life as We Know It (Can Be), looks at some of the solutions to climate change, which he told me about when he joined me from New York.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Bill Weir. Welcome to the program.
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT AND AUTHOR, LIFE AS WE KNOW IT (CAN BE): Great to be with you.
AMANPOUR: And I just want to ask you because it's so important to give people hope and to focus on things that actually go right. So, just this --
as I said, you've been covering it for so long, what now gives you hope?
WEIR: Well, what gives me hope, Christiane, is that we are really just made of stories, everything in our lives are stories we agree on in the moment.
And those stories are under constant revision. We are going through sort of an invisible industrial revolution right now as the world electrifies.
Texas, maybe the reddest state United States, leads the country in green energy way more than California and Florida. They're putting more solar
online because the economics just make sense. For the first time in human history, our cheapest fuels are not the ones we have to burn. The cheapest
fuels are now solar plus battery and onshore wind. And the economics trumping the ideology and sort of political resistance in places like Texas
right now.
And so, in this book, I'm trying to impart to my kids both a warning about the world we built for them by mistake, but all these amazing doers and
dreamers and helpers who are trying to find a better -- a better future for everybody.
AMANPOUR: You know, you talk about your kids and dedicating this book to them and even in the book apologizing for our generation's failure.
Nonetheless, we're trying to do what we can. But you also say that none of this that you've just said, the successes the movement would have happened
without young people.
WEIR: Exactly, exactly that, you know, it wouldn't have happened without Greta Thunberg, one young person who decided to start skipping school and
have this lonely climate strike. And that caught the imagination of her peers around the world and one of the plus sides of social media.
[13:50:00]
It can create communities that then when they went out into the streets and camped out into the halls of the Senate on Congress and shattered down the
corridors of power absolutely helped move the needle on the most ambitious climate legislation not only here, but around the world. And we can argue
over the strength or weaknesses of that policy. But those kids deserve some credit, I think.
AMANPOUR: And not just young people, but old people, elderly people. I don't know what you thought this week about the success in Europe in a
Swiss court. The Swiss grannies basically taking their human rights not to be overheated to court and winning.
WEIR: Exactly. That is sort of the other end of the age spectrum from the kids in Montana who won a climate case there, the first constitutional
right to a healthful environment. Other states not trying to try to add that in. There are dozens of cases in American courts where municipalities,
states, tribes are suing big oil companies for essentially lying to the public for generations about the harm their -- they knew that their product
would cause. It is those grannies turning their anxiety into action in a peaceful systematic way. And we'll see if that catches fire anyway.
Ultimately though, Christiane, they're up against the richest companies in human history who not only are enjoying the most -- the biggest profits in
human history, but are still getting billions and direct and indirect subsidies.
So, the social license of our fossil fuel lives very few people pick at gas stations, they go after pipelines, but until the consumption piece of this
is sorted out, but ultimately, the decision makers who could shift their business model to a much more sustainable direction has some, as some in
Europe have done, you could fit these guys the C-suiters is in a few big buses.
So, while it's important, I think for our kids and our families to understand each decision has a cost. The decision-makers now more than
ever, are the ones that are going to move the needle.
AMANPOUR: Indeed. And of course, that means it's not just, you know, individual citizens, good citizens, recycling and, you know, maybe cutting
down on meat and doing everything they possibly can. It does take, as you say, these corporations.
I don't know, maybe a little bit like the pharmaceutical industry was challenged, maybe like the tobacco industry was challenged. I don't know
what you think about that. But tell me a little bit about being the correspondent covering this. You've been doing this for years now, and
obviously, you have hope, but what have you seen that just, like, drives you nuts, particularly in partisan divides and reluctant communities?
WEIR: What drives me nuts are the people who know better, sowing doubt or getting in the way, either for power or profit or a platform, whatever the
case may be. The defense forever was we didn't know. We learned along the science along with everyone else. Well now you know. So, so what are you
doing next?
But, Christiane, I remember when we were together during Fukushima back in the ABC News days and I cut my teeth on Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans
and really got a master class at the sort of collision between nature and human nature. Then when I got the wonder list at CNN, I was able to go to
the other side and visit the happiest, healthiest, most resilient people around the planet and sort of take those ideas, cautionary tales from other
disasters.
And hopefully, we're learning from these and we're able fortify our communities and connect with each other now when the skies are relatively
blue because there's a lot of pain that's -- that is baked into our future, and we need to get our kids in love with nature, what's there to save,
there's so much left to save. But also understand, they can't take certain things for granted the way we did, like air, water, temperature, food, and
shelter.
AMANPOUR: Exactly. And I do think it's extraordinary that you have done the whole sort of world tour, so to speak, of seeing the great stuff, seeing
the not-so-great stuff, and coming to these conclusions. But I wonder what you think about the messaging and the storytelling.
I remember Christiana Figueres, who was the wonderful U.N. climate rep, who basically shepherded through the 2015 climate, you know, treaty back in
Paris. She was always telling us, don't just focus on the doom and gloom, you must give people hope, you must tell them about the successes. Do you
think we do that enough?
WEIR: No, I don't. And I've learned this on the job, you know, as the first sort of chief climate correspondent of any network, we're sort of making it
about as we go. And it's tempting to lean on the fear and warning button because there's plenty of reason for that.
But we resonate with stories because there's an arc and there's always a hopeful arc. What -- the person who taught me the best tip for covering
climate was Mr. Rogers, who said when he saw something scary on TV, his mother would say, look for the helpers. There's always helpers rushing into
disasters. And so, now, I get to go meet helpers who are building thermal battery plants or are figuring out ways to use nature-based solutions to
pull carbon out of the sea and sky.
[13:55:00]
And they are imagining a better world for their kids. And I think the more we share that, it's sort of a double-edged coin. You got to hold sort of
fear and hope in your head at the same time. ' AMANPOUR: Bill Weir, our correspondent and author of "Life As We Know It (Can Be)", thank you so much.
WEIR: Thank you, Christiane.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: And it is important to keep that hope alive. And that's it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly
after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching, and goodbye from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
